BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Beneventan Missal

Resolved,
	That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Report from the Right Honourable Sir David Hirst, Chairman of the Spoliation Advisory Panel, dated 15 September 2010, in respect of a renewed claim by the Metropolitan Chapter of Benevento for the return of the Beneventan Missal now in the possession of the British Library .-( Angela Watkinson .)

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked-

Paramilitary Organisations

Margaret Ritchie: What recent assessment he has made of the threat to security from paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

David Simpson: What recent assessment he has made of the level of dissident republican activity in Northern Ireland.

Owen Paterson: With permission, I would like to make a brief comment about the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Mr Woodward), and his deputy the shadow Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), as this might be their last outing in their current positions. We should put on record our gratitude for the work that they did when in office and for pulling off the great final stage of ensuring that policing and justice were devolved. We all owe them-and everyone in Northern Ireland owes them-a debt.
	The threat level in Northern Ireland remains at severe. The security forces continue to bear down on these terrorist groupings. So far this year, there have been 163 arrests and 56 persons charged with terrorist offences. That compares with 106 arrests and 17 charges in the whole of 2009. The numbers involved are small in terms of the overall population, but not insignificant in some areas. Everyone must play their part in demonstrating that these people have nothing to offer but suffering, damage and the diversion of money that would be better spent elsewhere.

Margaret Ritchie: I join the Secretary in State in condemning attacks by dissident republicans on police personnel, property and community. I also join him in thanking the shadow Secretary of State and the shadow Minister for their work in Northern Ireland over recent years.
	I would like to move on in respect of terrorist violence in Northern Ireland to today's findings of the Independent Monitoring Commission, which state that the Ulster Volunteer Force leadership sanctioned the murder of Bobby Moffett and that it could have stopped it if it had wanted. I am sure that the Secretary of State and all Members would agree that that should be viewed very seriously. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it undermines the assurances that we were given about UVF decommissioning? Does he have no concerns that a decision not to re-categorise the UVF ceasefire will send a signal that a planned killing is par for the course and represents an acceptable level of violence? Does he further agree that all this raises the question of when is a ceasefire a ceasefire?

Mr Speaker: Order. In future, questions must be shorter. This really will not do.

Owen Paterson: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's question. This was a disgusting murder, carried out at just after 1 o'clock in the afternoon in front of good, ordinary people going about their daily business, and it should be utterly condemned. The IMC report makes clear how extremely serious the matter is, but it does not recommend that we consider specification. We in Westminster, those in Stormont, the police, those responsible for security in Northern Ireland and, above all, the community have to bear down on this small number of people. I pay tribute to the very large number of people who turned out for the funeral, showing what the local community really thinks.

David Simpson: The Secretary of State will be aware of a recent attack by dissident republicans in my constituency, in which two young children almost lost their lives. My understanding is that six or seven people were arrested by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, but all were released. Does the right hon. Gentleman understand the frustration of my constituents at the fact that no one has been charged for that and other offences, or is it the case that the PSNI no longer has the experienced detectives that it needs?

Owen Paterson: I am very sympathetic to the problems that the hon. Gentleman has in his constituency. This small number of people are wholly unrepresentative of the community. What they are doing is utterly irresponsible and risks serious damage to lives-it has to be utterly condemned. We have to respect the operational independence of the police. As I cited earlier, arrests are up and charges are up this year. We have had 56 charges as against 17 last year, but it is not for me to interfere with the processes of the police or of justice. The hon. Gentleman has good contacts with the local Minister and this is a devolved matter. If the local judicial system can be accelerated, that is now in local hands; we should not tamper with the independence of either the police or the judiciary.

Laurence Robertson: I also pay tribute to the work of the shadow Secretary of State when he was in office, and I particularly thank the shadow Minister of State for the very courteous way in which he treated me while I shadowed him for a number of years.
	Given the pressures of historical inquiries and given the inevitable budgetary pressures that all public sector workers and departments are facing, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the PSNI has adequate resources to counter the threats we face-not only from dissident republicans, but from any terrorists in Northern Ireland?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful for the comments of the Chairman of the Select Committee. We will stand by Northern Ireland, and we will do what is right. As for the issue of police numbers, we know that there could always be more-there is not a chief constable in the United Kingdom who would not like more-but I am in regular contact with the local Justice Minister, the Chief Constable and those who are bearing down on dissidents, and we will ensure that we do the right thing by Northern Ireland.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I echo the words of thanks to the former Secretary of State and his former security Minister. We had several bruising encounters-some good and others not so good, but very enjoyable none the less.
	Let me turn to the dissident threat. Can the Secretary of State give us a progress report on the automatic number plate recognition system that his security Minister announced in the House not long ago? Has it been introduced, and what progress is being made in terms of countering and surveillance activities relating to dissident republicans?

Owen Paterson: At the last Question Time, we announced that we had approved the final tranche-the £12.9 million that was required for the new technology, which I expect to have a real impact in bearing down on the small number of dangerous people. Its implementation is in the hands of the local Minister and the Chief Constable. I shall be meeting them in the forthcoming days and will ask how they are progressing, but at the time of my last meeting with them, they were well on the way to introducing the technology.

Paul Goggins: I am grateful to the Secretary of State and, indeed, other Members who have made generous remarks this morning. I wish the Secretary of State and his deputy every success in their responsibilities.
	Dealing with threats to security in Northern Ireland requires full public confidence in a police service that is representative of the community that it serves. Although policing has now been devolved, the legal framework for ensuring that 30% of officers in the Police Service of Northern Ireland come from the Catholic community remains the Secretary of State's responsibility. Will he take this opportunity to confirm his commitment to achieving that target as soon as possible?

Owen Paterson: As the shadow Minister knows, the Patten commitment was to achieve a figure of 29% to 33% by this year. The current figure is 29.33%, so we have achieved the Patten threshold. The renewal of the measure was due to last one more year, and we agreed to that when we were in opposition. What we do next is up to us to discuss with the local Minister responsible and with those who now run the police service, but I hope that we have established enough momentum to ensure that people throughout the community will see joining the PSNI as a worthwhile career, and will be attracted to it.

Effects of Recession

Christopher Pincher: What recent discussions he has had with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive on the effects of the recession on the Northern Ireland economy.

Hugo Swire: With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I wish to add my thanks to the shadow Secretary of State and the shadow Minister for the assistance that they have given since we took office.
	In Belfast last month, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I met my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary and the Northern Ireland Ministers for Finance and Personnel and for Enterprise, Trade and Investment. We regularly meet Northern Ireland ministerial colleagues to discuss economic matters and how we can best work in partnership to stimulate economic growth and encourage inward investment in Northern Ireland.

Christopher Pincher: The economy in Northern Ireland remains delicate. Unemployment rose between March and May. Will my hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure that politicians and parties across the spectrum in Northern Ireland do not play politics when making economic decisions?

Hugo Swire: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I entirely agree with those sentiments. I am pleased to say that these are matters for the Executive. However, I understand that, in his capacity as Minister for Finance and Personnel, the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who is present-at least, he certainly was earlier-will meet my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury later today, along with representatives of the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales, to discuss financial matters including the forthcoming spending review.
	It is, perhaps, worth my adding that I echo the views of the hon. Member for East Antrim, who has said:
	"In some quarters, there appears to be an unwillingness to address the serious financial questions that are being posed. Let us be clear: we cannot dodge difficult decisions in formulating a new Budget. Delaying the Budget process until next spring is not an option."
	That is the way in which to proceed.

David Hanson: What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of deep public spending cuts in the Northern Ireland Executive budget, not only for the public sector but for the private sector, which depends on many of the contracts that are let? Also, what assessment has he made of the impact of the VAT rise on the ability of the Northern Ireland economy to escape from the recession?

Hugo Swire: The right hon. Gentleman does not, of course, draw attention to his Government's own cuts of £44 million, and he-and the House-would do well to remember that we are in the current economic situation as a result of the legacy of the previous Administration. There are a number of positive things to say about Northern Ireland, however: there is the increase in the enterprise finance guarantee scheme, and the waiving of national insurance contributions on the first 10 jobs created by a new business in year one will benefit more than 15,000 businesses in Northern Ireland, while reversing the most damaging part of the planned increase in employer national insurance contributions will add a saving of about £80 million in Northern Ireland. Look, the situation is very serious, but it was more serious before the coalition Government put these measures in place. It is not going to be easy, but Northern Ireland must play its part, along with the rest of the United Kingdom, in confronting the deficit and getting the economy going once more, which must be the aspiration of every Member.

Nigel Dodds: What meetings have the Minister or his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had with Treasury Ministers-and what representations have they received from them-on public expenditure in Northern Ireland generally, and specifically on the level of block grant to Northern Ireland after the spending review?

Hugo Swire: I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman that there will be a meeting this afternoon attended by his party colleague the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and representatives of the other Administrations in Scotland and Wales, at which, no doubt, these matters will be discussed in the proper manner.

Nigel Dodds: I asked the Minister what meetings he or his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had had with Treasury Ministers, not what meetings there had been between Executive Ministers and the Treasury. However, does he accept that the circumstances in Northern Ireland are unique? It is the only country or region in the United Kingdom that is suffering from the dissident terrorist threat-a subject that has already been discussed-and that shares a land frontier with another country, and it is also the only area in the United Kingdom that is coming out of 40 years of violence and terrorism, which has greatly truncated the ability of the private sector to compete. It is also the only area that has already had 3% year-on-year efficiency savings, implemented by the Executive. Will the Minister ensure that the fabric of society and vital services in Northern Ireland are protected by making sure that everything is done to protect the level of the block grant after the spending review?

Hugo Swire: Let me put the right hon. Gentleman straight: my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet Treasury Ministers regularly and have done of late, not least to discuss the issue that confronts us all to do with the Presbyterian Mutual Society, and we will continue to do so. The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, however, in that this issue brings to the fore once more the fact that it is completely unacceptable and unsustainable in the longer term for Northern Ireland's economy to be so dependent on the state sector-the relevant figures are about 70% as opposed to 30% for the private sector. We have to address that, such as by looking at other ways to kick-start the private sector, not least through corporation tax measures. We have to look at enterprise zones, too. All those things we are doing-

Mr Speaker: Order. We also have to move on.

Corporation Tax

Andrew Stephenson: What progress he has made in discussions with the Northern Ireland Executive and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on changes to corporation tax in Northern Ireland.

Owen Paterson: My hon. Friend the Minister of State, the Exchequer Secretary and I met Executive Ministers last month to discuss corporation tax and how the Northern Ireland economy could be rebalanced. We are working closely with them in the preparation of a Treasury paper and shall consult on this later in the year.

Andrew Stephenson: I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for that answer. Does he agree that the problem with the Northern Irish economy is that the private sector is too small, and that reducing corporation tax rates will help boost the private sector and rebalance the economy?

Owen Paterson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Let me give one figure: 77.6% of Northern Ireland's GDP is dependent on public spending. That is clearly wholly unsustainable, and our proposal is to rebalance the Northern Ireland economy-which I estimate will take at least 25 years-by a number of measures which could include the devolution of corporation tax rates, thereby allowing the local Executive to reduce them.

Mark Durkan: In the Secretary of State's consideration and representations on these matters, will he take particular account of the circumstances of border areas? Is he prepared to receive proposals on cross-border economic zones and their tax treatment, not least in the north-west, so that we can win investment and employment on the back of the cross-border Project Kelvin?

Owen Paterson: I am open to any ideas that will help to revive the private sector in Northern Ireland, which we all agree is too small. If the hon. Gentleman would like to make suggestions, my door will always be open. However, he should remember that a lot of this is devolved, with the decisions in the hands of his colleagues in the Assembly, and that this is a team game.

Shaun Woodward: I thank the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister for their kind words. It has been a huge privilege for my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) and I to serve the people of Northern Ireland. Whatever my future, which is in the hands of my hon. Friends, the right hon. Gentleman can be sure that we will continue our bipartisan support for his policy.
	During the general election, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) talked about targeting Northern Ireland and the north-east of England for special cuts in Government spending. The Secretary of State tried to blunt that with the prospect of cutting corporation tax, but he will know from the Azores ruling that it is legal only if Northern Ireland bears fiscal consequences. What is his estimate of the annual additional cut the Treasury would have to take from the annual block grant to fund a cut in corporation tax to 12.5%?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's comments, but I would just like to correct an inadvertent comment on my colleague the Prime Minister, who did not target Northern Ireland; he just said, correctly, that it is one of those parts of the United Kingdom that is over-dependent on the public sector. On the question of the corporation tax sums, I say, bluntly, that nobody knows. That is why I am working closely with my Treasury colleagues-in particular, the Exchequer Secretary-to work out exactly the cost. Some international accountancy firms have estimated that, according to the Azores ruling, about £100 million to £150 million would have to be taken off the block grant.

Shaun Woodward: The right hon. Gentleman will know that Northern Ireland is over-dependent for a very good reason: because of the troubles. The answer to the question is contained in the report produced by Sir David Varney for the Treasury, and it is that £300 million would be taken out of the block grant. I simply say to the right hon. Gentleman that the net cost to the Exchequer for 10 years would be estimated at £2.2 billion. He is a very good sort of fellow, so why does he not level with the people of Northern Ireland? Just as his party's electoral pact with the Ulster Unionists left them with nothing, just as his party's talks on the Presbyterian Mutual Society look like leaving small investors with nothing, the promises on corporation tax will result in at best nothing and at worst an invitation to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor to wield the axe.

Mr Speaker: Order. I ask for brevity, please, from the Front Benchers; other Members want to get in.

Owen Paterson: I am sorry that the tone has descended. All my colleagues in Front-Bench positions inherited the odd prawn behind the radiator. We inherited Northern Ireland and a whole bag full of old langoustines stuck under a radiator going at top speed. We face a long-term problem with the economy. The Varney report is, sadly, now out of date. It cited a figure of more than £300 million, whereas the independent Northern Ireland Economic Reform Group, which carried out a detailed study of the benefits that a reduction of corporation tax would bring, gave a lower figure. The fact is that we do not know yet, and we will be studying this in detail and introducing our proposals later in the autumn.

Mr Speaker: These answers are lasting quite a long time.

Saville Inquiry

Luciana Berger: What recent representations he has received on the report of the Saville inquiry.

Owen Paterson: The reaction to the report of the Saville inquiry and to the Prime Minister's statement to this House on 15 June has been overwhelmingly positive. Since publication, I have also met the families of those killed. I have received no formal representations in relation to the inquiry's report, other than routine correspondence.

Luciana Berger: Yesterday, the Secretary of State once again informed the House that he will be meeting the families who lost their loved ones in Ballymurphy in August 1971. Will he assure the House that the issues that cannot be explored by the Historical Enquiries Team will be resolved by a process that is satisfactory to the families?

Owen Paterson: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I think that she should understand the sensitivities of these historical cases. Where I have given a commitment-I have a meeting planned with the families-it is appropriate that I talk to the families first before I comment further.

Gregory Campbell: Whatever mechanism we adopt to deal with the past, if we adopt any at all, surely it must be consistent. Does the Secretary of State agree that, whereas the Saville report dealt purely with the activities of the troops, soldiers and other activists on the day, the Billy Wright inquiry, which the media attended, seemed to deal with issues before and after the events of the day? We need a consistent approach to try to bring some closure.

Owen Paterson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and that is why we have launched a process of talking to local politicians and local groups to work out a way forward on how we handle the past. It was clear from the submissions to Eames-Bradley that there is absolutely no consensus, but the hon. Gentleman is right that we must have a process that is consistent. We will be working on that over the coming months.

Pat Finucane

Barry Gardiner: Whether he has met the family of Pat Finucane to offer an inquiry into his death; and if he will make a statement.

Owen Paterson: I met the family of Pat Finucane while in opposition. On becoming Secretary of State, I wrote to the family and invited them to meet me.

Barry Gardiner: Will the Secretary of State elucidate the questions that were put to him by the family at that meeting?

Owen Paterson: The meeting that I had with them in opposition was some time ago. I have a meeting planned shortly and I think that it is appropriate, as I have said on several occasions, that I talk to the families first before pronouncing further. The hon. Gentleman knows from his time as a Minister in Northern Ireland how sensitive and difficult this issue is, which is why it was not resolved by his Government.

William McCrea: Surely the Secretary of State will realise that, rather than individual inquiries, it would be better to put the resources into the Historical Enquiries Team so as to allow a swathe of the people who have been injured and who suffered through the tragedies of Northern Ireland's years of terrorism to find answers to their questions.

Owen Paterson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Historical Enquiries team is looking at 3,268 deaths on a budget that was originally set at £34 million over six years. We must contrast that with the Billy Wright inquiry on which I reported yesterday, which cost £30 million and looked into one death.

Cross-border Economic Co-operation

Nicky Morgan: What recent discussions he has had with the Irish Government on cross-border economic co-operation.

Hugo Swire: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State held discussions on economic matters, which are largely devolved to Northern Ireland, with Irish Government Ministers when he was recently in Dublin. The trade and business development body, which aims to enhance the economy on both sides of the border, is a forum operating under the North/South Ministerial Council that also allows Northern Ireland and Irish Ministers to discuss those matters.

Nicky Morgan: I thank the Minister for his reply. Have he and his team considered what lessons can be learned from the economic successes of the Republic of Ireland in the 1980s and 1990s that could now be applied to the economy of Northern Ireland?

Hugo Swire: Yes, we certainly continue to study that. It is worth pointing out that despite the economic slowdown experienced in recent years the Republic of Ireland continues to attract major foreign direct investment. Indeed, the Republic of Ireland's stock of direct inward investment is five times greater than the OECD average. According to one leading accountancy firm, there have been well over 50 investment projects this year alone. It is significant, we believe, when spending is being cut and many taxes are going up, that the one set of taxes that are not being touched in the Republic are the low rates of corporation taxes.

Alasdair McDonnell: I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he accept and agree with me that cross-border co-operation is vital for economic recovery in border areas of Northern Ireland? Does he agree that because of the banking crisis there are major cross-border interests that we need to deal with at a British-Irish level?

Hugo Swire: I most certainly do, bearing in mind that a lot of these decisions are up to the Assembly and the Executive. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt welcome, along with us, the forthcoming investment conference in Washington under the patronage of Secretary of State Clinton, as well as the advance trip to Northern Ireland by her husband, former President Clinton, at which representatives from Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland will be present hoping to attract inward investment, which will benefit the very cross-border communities to whom the hon. Gentleman has alluded.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked-

Engagements

Julian Smith: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 15 September.

David Cameron: I am sure that the House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Kingsman Darren Deady from 2nd Battalion the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment who died on Friday after being injured in Helmand province on 23 August. We are for ever indebted to him for the sacrifice that he has made. We send our sincere condolences to his family, friends and comrades who all miss him very much. He will not be forgotten.
	This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Julian Smith: May I add my sympathies to those of the Prime Minister?
	At a time when we need to maximise growth and restore our public finances, is it not the height of irresponsibility that the unions are planning to go on strike, and should not former Ministers be ashamed of themselves for encouraging it?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Everyone in the country-the trade unions included-knows that we have to cut public spending, that we have to get the deficit down and that we have to keep interest rates down. It is the height of irresponsibility for shadow Ministers to troop off to the TUC and tell it that it is all right to go on strike. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Harriet Harman: May I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Kingsman Darren Deady from 2nd Battalion the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment? We honour his bravery and we think of his family and friends as they mourn their loss. May I give my condolences to the Prime Minister and his family on the loss of his father? The words he used to express his love for his father touched everyone. Today, as we welcome the Prime Minister back to his place, I also congratulate him and Mrs Cameron on the birth of their new baby.
	Let me ask about an issue that is of great concern on both sides of the House-the trafficking of women and girls for sex. This week, a gang was convicted here in London for bringing girls as young as 13 to this country to be sold for sex. The work of the police and prosecutors has protected young women from that gang, but this evil trade is growing. All parties in the House are united in their abhorrence of it. Will the Prime Minister update us on the work that is being undertaken to stop it?

David Cameron: I thank the right hon. and learned Lady not only for what she said about the serviceman whom we lost in Afghanistan but for her very kind words about my father and our new daughter. I am very grateful for what was said last week by the shadow Lord Chancellor and for the letters that I have received from Members right across the House. It is very touching and heart-warming that people think about you at times like these, so I thank them for that.
	Let me take this opportunity to say something about the right hon. and learned Lady, as I think this will be the last time that we face each other across the Dispatch Box. She is the third Labour leader with whom I have had to do battle-she is by far the most popular-and she has used these opportunities to push issues that she cares about deeply such as the one she has raised today. She has been a thorough credit as the stand-in leader of the Labour party and I thank her for what she has done.
	The issue of the trafficking of women and girls is an extremely important, sensitive and difficult one. I have been to see some of the exhibitions that have been run, including the one by Emma Thompson, about how bad the problem is. We are committed to working across the Government to do everything we can to help the police, to help at our borders and to make sure that we have in place all the laws and systems to bring this evil trade to an end. It is something that, tragically, has grown over recent years. We often talk about how we have ended slavery in our world, but we have not; it is still with us and this is the worst manifestation of it.

Harriet Harman: I thank the Prime Minister for his complimentary words-it is just as well that I am not wearing a hoodie.
	I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman says about human trafficking, and I am grateful to him and the Deputy Prime Minister for working with us on it when they were in opposition. Will the Prime Minister help to build on that work by agreeing that the United Kingdom will opt in to the new European directive on trafficking in human beings, which the Commission proposed in March?

David Cameron: I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for raising that point. We are looking carefully at the issue. From looking at the directive so far, we have discovered that it does not go any further than the law that we have already passed. We have put everything that is in the directive in place. I am happy to go away and look again but, of course, as we do when thinking about all the things that we have to consider opting in to, we have to ask ourselves not only what is in this directive and whether we are already doing it-the answer in this case is yes-but what might be the consequences for our security and borders, and our ability to take decisions in the House. That is the consideration that we have to make, and I give absolutely no apology for saying that this Government will look at these things very carefully before signing them.

Harriet Harman: But the difficulty is that the Government have already indicated that they will opt out of the directive. If we are already complying with it in this country's laws and practices, as well as working internationally, we should be proud of that and step forward to sign the directive. Will the Prime Minister reconsider?

David Cameron: I have already answered that, but let me make some additional points: first, the directive itself is still being finalised; and, secondly, there are opportunities at any stage to opt in to something of which we approve. However, the key point is that we must examine the directive and then ask whether opting in would add anything to what we already do in this vital area-[Hon. Members: "Yes."] Hon. Members say yes, but the fact is that we do all the things that are in the directive today, so we then have to ask whether opting in would in any way endanger our borders and immigration system. That is a question that a responsible Government ought to ask, and it is a question that this Government will ask.

Harriet Harman: The right hon. Gentleman is hanging back on this-he should step forward and sign the directive. The point is that trafficking is an international crime. The traffickers work across borders, so we have to work across borders to stop them. Will he reconsider and opt into the directive?

David Cameron: I have answered the question. The fact is that we have to work internationally. We are working internationally as well as making sure that we have what we need at our borders and in our police service here in the UK. We are also looking at something that the previous Government did not put in place: a proper border police force, which would make a real difference to securing our borders. However, as I said, when looking at such directives, it is right to ask not just whether we are already doing the things that are in them, but what might be the other consequences of signing up. That is a sensible thing to do; the previous Government signed far too many things without ever thinking about what the consequences would be.

Harriet Harman: I am disappointed by the Prime Minister's answer. I know that some in his party are irrationally hostile to Europe, but he should not let them stand in the way of stopping human trafficking.
	Just one last question before I go. When the Conservatives were in opposition, they regularly complained that we had Prime Minister's questions only once a week. Now that the right hon. Gentleman knows just how enjoyable the experience is, does he plan to bring it back to twice a week?

David Cameron: It is one of the few things that Tony Blair did of which I thoroughly approve. Quite seriously, having worked for Leaders of the Opposition and Prime Ministers who did Prime Minister's questions, I think that a half-hour session once a week is good not only so that Parliament can grill the Prime Minister, but so that the Prime Minister can grill everyone in his or her office to find out everything that is going on in government. That is the right way to do these things.
	I know that we are not saying goodbye to the right hon. and learned Lady-it is only au revoir-and that she will be the deputy leader under whichever leader the Labour party elects. I note that she can spend some time over the coming days contemplating what to do with the four votes that I think she has in the election, because she is of course a member of a trade union, a Member of Parliament, a member of the Labour party and a member of the Fabian Society. Her position can be combined with her husband's, whom I believe has another three votes-democracy is a beautiful thing!

Julian Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the saddest legacies the Government inherited is the fact that one child in five grows up in a household in which nobody is in work? Does he agree that it is not just an economic but a moral imperative that we should, to coin a phrase, move from a handout to a hand up?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is entirely right. If we want to tackle poverty, we must go to the causes of poverty. The chief cause of poverty is people being out of work generation after generation and, as he says, young people growing up in homes where nobody works, where there is no role model to follow. That is why we are pursuing the welfare reform agenda so vigorously, because we want to help people to get out of unemployment and into work. We want it to be worth while for everybody to work or to work more than they do now. That is what our welfare reforms, so scandalously neglected by the previous Government, have set out to achieve.

Derek Twigg: The proposed £400 million Mersey Gateway project, which will create up to 4,000 new jobs in the area, is under threat because of the spending review, despite the fact that it is strongly supported by business and by all local authorities across Cheshire and Merseyside, including the Chancellor's local authority. How will cutting projects like the Mersey Gateway help economic growth in the north-west?

David Cameron: We are not making any further cuts in capital spending. The hon. Gentleman ought to ask the question of those on his own Front Bench. The Labour party went into the last election with a 50% cut in capital spending in its figures, and did not tell us one single project that would be cut. We have said that that is far enough; we should go no further. We will be protecting capital spending to help to boost the recovery in our country.

Peter Bone: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in his excellent speech on parliamentary reform, promised far more free votes in the Committee stage of major Bills. Can he confirm that this bold and courageous policy will apply to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill?

David Cameron: We have already taken some big steps to pass power from the Executive to Parliament- [Interruption.] Someone shouts "Rubbish." We established the Backbench Business Committee. The Opposition had 13 years; they never did that. We gave the House of Commons control over electing Select Committee Chairmen. The Opposition had 13 years to do that. It never happened. We will be giving Select Committees further powers over selecting and looking at appointments in the public sector, and I am the first Prime Minister in British history to give up the right to call a general election. As for major parts of legislation set out in our coalition agreement, I regret to inform my hon. Friend that I will be hoping for all my colleagues to support them with head, heart and soul, if I may put it that way, but should there be greater opportunities for free votes, yes, there should be. I remember the previous Government, even on topics such as embryo research and experimentation, whipping their Members, particularly in the House of Lords. That was quite wrong and it will not happen under this Government.

Tom Greatrex: Given the strategic defence importance of the aircraft carriers on which work has already started, will the Prime Minister undertake to meet urgently with me, other parliamentary colleagues and workplace representatives so that they can put to him their concerns about reports that the aircraft carriers will be cancelled, before it is too late?

David Cameron: I am sure my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary and his Ministers are happy to meet anyone who wants to discuss the state of the defence budget and the appalling legacy that we have been left. Of all the budgets that I have looked at, that is the one where we were left the biggest mess-£38 billion over-committed, and decisions taken that made very little sense at all. But the hon. Gentleman will be seeing a strategic defence review in which we properly review how we can make sure that we have forces that are right for our country, right for our interests and ensure that we protect our interests around the world.- [ Interruption .]

Claire Perry: I am afraid I have no props.- [Laughter.]
	With only five years to go to achieve the millennium development goals, which are still way off track, what will the Prime Minister do to ensure that those critical promises are kept?

David Cameron: My apologies for missing the joke. Next time I will look more carefully. I did not know that we were allowed props, Mr Speaker, but obviously you take a more relaxed view of these things.
	My hon. Friend raises a very important point and the conference- [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I may take a relaxed view about some things, but not about excessive noise. The Prime Minister must be heard.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend raises a very important point about the millennium development goals, set in 2000 and meant to be completed by 2015, and there is a vital conference, which the Deputy Prime Minister will be attending next week, on that specific issue. This country-this applies to parties on both sides-can hold its head up high, given that we are going to hit the 0.7% target of gross national income going to aid. That means that we will be playing our part in making sure that those vital MDGs are met. It is important, although spending decisions are going to be difficult, that we hold our head up high not only overseas but at home and say, "This is right, to help the poorest in our world, even when we have difficult budget decisions at home."

Julie Hilling: May I join the Prime Minister in sending my condolences to the family of Kingsman Darren Deady, who was a constituent of mine and sadly lost his life last Friday, having been injured in Afghanistan three weeks ago? His senior officer said that Kingsman Deady
	"was a superb soldier-trusted, respected and an example to others."
	He will be sadly missed. Bolton Community and Voluntary Services has already lost £89,000 of grants this year for small voluntary groups-groups often working with the most vulnerable. Many organisations are on the brink of closure because of those cuts. If the Prime Minister believes in the big society, what will he do to save those groups?

David Cameron: What I would say to the hon. Lady's local council is what I would say to every council in the country, which is that we all know-and Opposition Members know-that we have to make spending reductions. The Opposition were committed to £44 billion of spending reductions at the last election, and we should say to every single council in the country, "When it comes to looking at and trimming your budgets, don't do the easy thing, which is to cut money to the voluntary bodies and organisations working in our communities. Look at your core costs. Look at how you can do more for less. Look at the value for money you get from working with the voluntary sector." The hon. Lady should take that message to her local authority. That is the message that I would take to her local authority, and everyone should try to work in that direction.

Priti Patel: Has the Prime Minister received any representations from Fidel Castro on deficit reduction? Is there any possibility of arranging a trade union conference pass for Mr Castro so that he might be able to enlighten the trade unions on cutting back the size of the state?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. This week it was revealed that even Communist Cuba has got with the programme that we need to cut budget deficits and get spending under control. So we have Comrade Castro on the same planet as the rest of us; we just have to get the Labour party and the trade unions on that planet at the same time.

Valerie Vaz: Burma and Iran were signatories to the universal declaration on human rights, but there are some men and women who cannot exercise those rights. In particular, Sakineh Ashtiani awaits death by stoning, and Aung San Suu Kyi has been imprisoned because she won an election. Will the Prime Minister make urgent and renewed representations to the Governments of Burma and Iran in order to free those brave and courageous women?

David Cameron: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise that issue, and I shall do precisely as she says and continue to make those representations. It is important that we make them not just to those Governments, but to Governments who sometimes take a slightly different view. When I was in India I raised the issue of Burma with the Indian Government, because I think it is important that we talk to the neighbouring states of those countries and make sure that they are campaigning in the same way.
	The human rights record in Iran is absolutely appalling. The person to whom the hon. Lady refers is being treated in a completely inhuman and despicable fashion, and we should be absolutely clear that the situation in Burma is an affront to humanity. Aung San Suu Kyi's continued detention is an outrage. She has spent 14 of the past 20 years under house arrest, and her example is deeply inspiring. All of us like to think that we give up something for democracy and politics; we do not. Compared with those people, we do nothing. They are an inspiration right across the world, and we should stand with them.

Martin Horwood: Like the last Government, we have promised to act on the litter that defaces our towns and countryside. Unlike the last Government, will we take some real practical action, such as starting a bottle deposit and refund scheme, which a Campaign to Protect Rural England report launched today shows will protect the environment and save local authorities millions of pounds?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a very interesting suggestion. Bill Bryson has made this suggestion to me as well because of the success that schemes like this have had in other countries. I will certainly ask his right hon. Friend the Energy and Climate Change Secretary to look at this issue and see if we can take it forward.

Angela Smith: Back in June, Andrew Cook boasted that he was the largest donor to the Conservative party in Yorkshire, and yet it turns out that his registered main residence is on the island of Guernsey. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that when he accepted free plane flights from Andrew Cook, he did so having satisfied himself that such a donation was both legally and morally acceptable?

David Cameron: Obviously it is up to every party leader to make sure that when they accept a donation they make proper checks and do so in the proper way. All the donations that the Conservative party has received are properly set out with the Electoral Commission and other bodies, and we do everything we can to make sure they are accurate; I hope that the Labour party does the same thing.

Mark Lancaster: Two weeks ago, Bola Ejifunmilayo and her three year old daughter Fiyin burned to death in an unregistered house in multiple occupancy. Often poorly converted, with enormous fire risks, the majority of HMOs in Milton Keynes and elsewhere remain unregistered. What more can the Government do to end this plight and hopefully prevent another tragedy?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point about an absolutely tragic case. As he knows, local authorities are responsible for licensing houses in multiple occupation, and they have the power to prosecute landlords who fail to apply for a licence-and they should do so. There have been too many cases like this. The law is there; it should be used. Our whole approach is to give local authorities the power they need, and the discretion they need, to take action for the good of their communities; that is the change we want to bring.

Rosie Cooper: Building work is already under way on a new campus for Skelmersdale and Ormskirk college in my constituency, so it was a real shock to find that £4 million committed to the project will now not be available because of the Government's decision to stop the budgets of the regional development agency with immediate effect. Could the Prime Minister please meet me and those at the college to try to find a way through? The building is already going up, and this would be a real embodiment of a hand up to the young people of Skelmersdale and the start of the regeneration of Skelmersdale.

David Cameron: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise this specific case, and I will go away and look at it. In the Budget, while we did make difficult decisions, and some spending reductions were made, we actually put some money back into college building projects because so many schemes had suffered from the overspending and lack of control over the past couple of years. I will certainly look at her case and see whether a Minister can meet her to see what progress can be made.

Brandon Lewis: In Great Yarmouth, one of our Labour legacies is that we still have one of the more deprived wards in the country. Could the Prime Minister outline the plans he has to deal with one of the legacies he has inherited, which is the shocking breach in the achievement levels of deprived schoolchildren?

David Cameron: There are many things we need to do to tackle deprivation. We have spoken today about the importance of tackling long-term unemployment and joblessness that goes back through generations. Clearly, one of the other things is making sure that children from less well-off backgrounds are getting access to the best schools available. My right hon. Friend the Education Secretary has announced this week how we are going to try to help children on free school meals to get access to the very best schools in our country, and we want to expand the number of good schools by allowing academies and free schools to go forward. I hope that Labour Members will back those plans. The problem we have is that there are not enough good school places. It does not matter how many different schemes are devised for lotteries or anything else for getting kids into good schools, we need more good school places, not least in Great Yarmouth.

Vernon Coaker: Talking of schools, on 2 September the Department for Education sneaked out the equalities impact assessment associated with the Building Schools for the Future decision. That assessment showed that the scrapping of that policy had a disproportionate impact on poorer children in our society. Can the Prime Minister explain what is progressive about that?

David Cameron: One person's announcement is another person's sneaking out; I do not quite understand that. Let me tell the person who was largely responsible for designing Building Schools for the Future what a completely shambolic and disastrous programme it was. It took three years and £250 million before a single brick was laid; well, maybe we should assess that. The other thing that we could perhaps assess-it is worth reminding people of this-is the bureaucracy of Building Schools for the Future. There were nine meta-stages to putting in a bid. Each of the nine stages had further sub-stages. This is what a local authority had to do- [ Interruption. ] Well, the hon. Gentleman was responsible for the programme; I am sure this will be a trip down memory lane for him.  [ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister will be heard.

David Cameron: Thank you very much.
	Local authorities that wanted to get involved needed a partnership for schools director, a director of education project adviser, a 4Ps adviser, an enabler from the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment- [Interruption.] I am sorry the list is so long, but it goes on and on. [Hon. Members: "Answer the question!"] The answer is that it was a disastrous programme, completely overspent and totally out of control. The last Government had announced 50% cuts and had not told us where a penny was coming from, and the hon. Gentleman is largely responsible for it.

Stephen Lloyd: Could the Prime Minister confirm that the Minister for Immigration will in the next few days come up with a solution for the English language schools in the UK, so that the good schools can move forward productively while bogus colleges and bogus students are dealt with?

David Cameron: I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration is working extremely hard on that issue. We all want the same thing, which is to ensure that Britain benefits as a provider of great education courses, universities and colleges that can attract talented people from around the world. But at the same time, we all know that there have been too many bogus colleges and too many bogus students coming here not really to study but to work or for other reasons, and we have to crack down on that. That is what my hon. Friend the Immigration Minister is trying to do, and I am sure he will be in contact with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) to ensure that that is the outcome of the policy.

Michael Connarty: I want to help the Prime Minister to reconsider the fact that we are not signing up to the directive on human trafficking, which, as he may understand, I know a little about. As a consequence, we rely on sections 57 and 59 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. That means that we cannot, for example, pursue or have any jurisdiction over someone who is normally a resident of the UK but is not a UK national, who is involved in human trafficking. More importantly, we cannot have jurisdiction when a UK resident in another EU country is trafficked by a non-

Mr Speaker: Order. I think we have got the drift of it.

David Cameron: I will obviously listen very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman says, and perhaps he would like to set out in detail why he thinks this is so important. The point is that the UK's victim care arrangements are already in line with internationally agreed standards, as set out in the Council of Europe convention on trafficking. The UK already does what is required by the proposed directive on assisting victims, so the proposed directive would not improve the provision of victim care. Those are the facts, and Opposition Members need to engage with that point.

Iain Stewart: If the Prime Minister were invited to lecture at Harvard university, like the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), on what subject would he care to speak?

David Cameron: I hope that my days on the international lecture circuit are some way in the future.

Jim Cunningham: What is the Prime Minister doing to protect manufacturing in the west midlands, and in Coventry in particular? Equally, what is he doing to protect the research and development that a lot of manufacturing companies rely on?

David Cameron: The most important thing that we can do is make Britain a great place to do business, to set up a business and to manufacture. That is why we showed in the Budget that we are going to cut corporation tax to one of the lowest levels in the developed world, why we are cutting national insurance for every new business that sets up, and why we are dealing with the appalling economic inheritance that we were left by the Labour party so that this economy can grow, have low interest rates and get moving to provide good jobs for all our people. That is what this Government are all about, and that is what we are fixing.

Robert Halfon: Is the Prime Minister aware that the last Government took £30 million a year out of our social housing budget to give to their friends elsewhere? Because of that under-investment, one in 10 people in my constituency are on the council housing waiting list. Does he agree that social housing money raised in Harlow should be spent in Harlow, and that Harlow housing money should be for Harlow people?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point, which is that in our relations with local government, at a difficult time in terms of budgets, we should be giving it money and taking away the ring-fencing and complications and all the different grants. We should say, "There's the money. You're democratically elected, you decide how that money is spent." That is what people are going to see from this Government, and I think it will be welcomed by local government up and down the country.

William McCrea: Before the election, the Prime Minister said:
	"If I am Prime Minister a Conservative and Unionist Government will work with"
	the Northern Ireland
	"Executive to ensure a just and fair resolution of the PMS"-
	the Presbyterian Mutual Society-and continued:
	"you've done the right thing and you deserve for that to be recognised and rewarded."
	How soon will that pledge be honoured?

David Cameron: I am determined that we will honour that pledge. This is important. I know how angry people in Northern Ireland are when they hear British politicians say, "Of course, nobody lost any savings in the crash." People did lose money, including in Northern Ireland, and they are right to be upset and angry.
	A working group is trying to go through those issues and to find an answer. My right hon. Friend the Northern Ireland Secretary is involved in that, and the Chancellor is engaged in the issue. It is not easy, but we are determined to find a solution so that we can give satisfaction to people who lost money in Northern Ireland and who currently feel that they have been let down.

Mr Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber do so quickly and quietly, so that the House can hear the statement from the Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform?

Individual Electoral Registration

Mark Harper: With permission, I should like to make a statement on the Government's plans for the implementation of individual electoral registration in Great Britain-Northern Ireland having introduced such a system in 2002.
	It is widely recognised on both sides of the House that the current arrangements for electoral registration need to change. At present, there is no requirement for people to provide any evidence of their identity to register to vote, which leaves the system vulnerable to fraud. Household registration harks back to a time when registration was the responsibility of the head of the household. Access to a right as fundamental as voting should not be dependent on someone else. We need a better system of keeping up with people who move house or who need to update their registration for other reasons. Individual registration provides an opportunity to move forward to a system centred around the individual citizen.
	I am sure that Members on both sides of the House are concerned when they read of allegations of electoral fraud, including those alleged to have taken place at elections this year. Although proven electoral fraud is relatively rare, we should be concerned about the impact that such cases have on the public's confidence in the electoral system. The most recent survey, which was taken after the general election in May, found that one third of people think that electoral fraud is a problem. We can be confident that any allegations will be properly investigated by the authorities, but it is right that we take steps to make the system less vulnerable to fraud, because tackling that perception is an important part of rebuilding trust in our democracy, which is why this Government are committed to speeding up the implementation of individual registration.
	Individual registration will require each person to register themselves and to provide personal identifiers-date of birth, signature and national insurance number-which will allow registration officers to cross-check the information provided before a person is added to the register, which should tackle the problem of fraudulent or ineligible registrations.
	However, I want to make it absolutely clear that there will be no new databases. The Government's commitment to rolling back the surveillance state will be demonstrated clearly later today when the House debates the remaining stages of the Identity Documents Bill. Electoral registration officers will check the information they receive from people applying to be registered with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that the applicant is genuine. People seeking to access public services are already subject to various similar authentication processes, for example when applying for benefits, and I do not believe such a check, which will help to eliminate electoral fraud, is disproportionate or that it represents an invasion of privacy. Naturally, we will ensure that robust arrangements are put in place to ensure that personal data are securely held and processed by electoral registration officers. Personal identifiers will not be published in the electoral register.
	The Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 was passed in the previous Parliament with all-party support. At this point, it is worth paying tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), who worked tirelessly on promoting that. The Act gave us a framework for moving to individual registration. Introduction was to be on a voluntary basis before a further decision by Parliament-on the recommendation of the Electoral Commission-on whether to make it compulsory from later in 2015 at the earliest, but it is our judgment that that is a slow and very expensive way of doing things.
	I am announcing today that we will legislate to implement individual registration in 2014. We will drop the previous Government's plans for a voluntary phase, which would have cost about £74 million over the Parliament. I believe that there is a far more cost-effective way to familiarise people with the new requirements for registration and-importantly-avoid any temporary drop in registration rates.
	We propose that individual registration will be made compulsory in 2014, but that no one will be removed from the electoral register who fails to register individually until after the 2015 general election, giving people at least 12 months to comply with the new requirements, and ensuring as complete a register as possible for the election. From 2014 onwards any new registrations will need to be carried out under the new system, including last-minute registrations. We will also make individual registration a requirement for anyone wishing to cast a postal or proxy vote. That will tackle immediately the main areas of concern on electoral fraud, but it will ensure that people already on the register can vote at the next election and will have more than one opportunity to register individually.
	Individual registration also provides us with an opportunity to tackle concerns about people missing from the electoral register, which are held on both sides of the House. But it is important to put this into perspective: the UK registration rate at 91% to 92% compares well internationally, including with some countries where voting is compulsory.
	There is a significant number of people who are eligible to vote but not on the register. There is a variety of reasons for this and the move to individual registration provides us with an opportunity to do something about it. Whether a person chooses to register or not should be their individual choice. But we should do everything we can to ensure that people are not prevented from registering because the system is difficult to use or through ignorance of their rights. For example, research carried out by the Electoral Commission revealed that 31% of people believed that they would be automatically registered if they paid council tax. Many of those people may not therefore actually take the trouble to register to vote. As part of introducing individual registration, as well as improving the accuracy of the register, we will therefore take steps to improve its completeness.
	I can also announce today that we will be trialling data-matching during 2011-that is comparing the electoral register with other public databases to find the people who are eligible to vote but who are missing from the register. The aim is to tackle under-registration among specific groups in our society and ensure that every opportunity is available to those currently not on the electoral register. These pilots will enable us to see how effective data-matching is and to see which data sets are of most use in improving the accuracy and completeness of the electoral register. If they are effective, we will roll them out more widely across local authorities on a permanent basis to help ensure that our register is as complete as possible. The Electoral Commission will also play a key role in assessing and reporting on the pilots.
	I will be writing to all local authorities responsible for electoral registration to invite them to put themselves forward to take part in these trials and I strongly encourage them to work in partnership with the Government on this important matter. Much work is already done by electoral registration officers to raise awareness and encourage people to register, but I will be considering further how local authorities. Members of Parliament and the Government might work together to develop an approach that will make a positive impact on the level of electoral registration.
	Registration should be a simple process. We will also be considering how electoral registration can be integrated into people's day-to-day transactions with Government, for example when they move house, or visit the post office, or apply for a passport or driving licence.
	Our proposals will improve both the completeness and accuracy of the register. We will therefore seek to bring forward a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny in the current session followed by a Bill to introduce individual registration from 2014. The need to improve the accuracy and completeness of electoral registers is an issue on which there is cross-party consensus. As we move forward, it will be important for us to maintain consensus and we will be seeking to work closely on implementation with political parties across the House.
	The steps that I am announcing today will achieve change over the lifetime of this Parliament that will safeguard the integrity of our electoral system and improve registration levels. They are an important part of rebuilding people's faith in our democracy and I commend this statement to the House.

Jack Straw: I'm back again.
	I am grateful to the Minister for his statement, but not-I am afraid-for most of its content. Will he accept that his announcement today of the speeding up of individual registration, but without safeguards or any additional funding, could undermine the integrity of our democracy and lead to a repeat on the mainland of the Northern Ireland experience, in which the introduction of individual registration led to a 10% drop in registrations and many eligible voters effectively being disfranchised?
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009, which was passed with all-party support, and he paid a fulsome tribute-entirely deserved, if I may so-to the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), but why did he not go on to acknowledge the reasons the Conservative Front-Bench team endorsed wholly and specifically the detailed timetable in the 2009 Act and the special safeguards and the role for the Electoral Commission, which was spelt out in that Act? Has he forgotten what his own hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Epping Forest, said in the House and has repeated since the general election? She said that
	"it is right to take this matter forward carefully and step by step. None of us wants to see a system introduced that would in any way undermine the integrity of our democratic system."-[ Official Report, 13 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 108.]
	And is he not also aware of the endorsement of the details in the 2009 Act by the then Liberal Democrat spokesman, David Howarth? He said:
	"I do not think that anybody was suggesting that the timetable be artificially shortened"-
	exactly what the Minister is now proposing-
	"or that any risk be taken with the comprehensiveness of the register."-[ Official Report, 13 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 112.]
	The Minister seeks to justify his announcement today principally by referring to electoral fraud. We all share concerns about electoral fraud, which pollutes and undermines the democratic process, and the last Government, not least in the Electoral Administration Act 2006, took active measures that are working to protect us better against fraud. However, that was not the principal reason for individual registration. That was about giving people rights as individual citizens just as these days people have rights to individual taxation. What is the evidence that initial registration is the principal point at which fraud takes place? In my experience, the principal problems have come not from that, but from personation at the polls of someone lawfully and properly on the register, or from misconduct over postal votes, where the 2006 Act provisions are working, but where further protection could easily be provided by the simple arrangement of banning the publication of the absent voters list in the immediate run-up to, and during, the election.
	The Minister complains now about cost and complexity, but given that our scheme in the 2009 Act was the subject of detailed cross-party consultation by Lord Wills, then my right hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon, why was no such complaint made just six months ago? That system provided a key role for the European-I mean the Electoral-Commission- [Interruption.] I had Prime Minister's questions on the brain, but happily the European Commission is not involved in this at all. The system provided a key role for the Electoral Commission to certify that full steps had been taken, but the Minister's provisions seek to bypass the safeguarding role of the Electoral Commission. Why is that?
	The arrangement set out in the 2009 Act included a voluntary process that the Minister now derides, but has he forgotten that the hon. Member for Epping Forest specifically endorsed voluntary registration in the first instance, making that subject to certification by the Electoral Commission that it was safe to proceed? The Minister claims that our overall registration rates are similar to other countries. They may be, but will he not accept that the overall average disguises the fact that, as the Electoral Commission showed, in many areas, especially in inner-urban areas and seaside towns, and among the young and those on lower incomes, levels of registration are much lower than the average, and less probably than in other countries?
	So far as data-matching is concerned, there is no need, as the Minister implied, for further powers. They are already on the statute book and go back to previous Conservative Administrations, with powers for electoral registration officers strengthened by us, as set out in detail in a parliamentary answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane). We will work carefully with the Minister to ensure that the data-matching arrangements are effective.
	Overall, however, time and again the Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have accepted that 3.5 million voters are missing from the register. The burden of the Minister's statement today represents an admission that the 2010 register will disfranchise millions of voters, yet he is planning to use that register for the new fixed boundary arrangements, which will eliminate any local independent public inquiries. Given that, what possible reason is there for rushing the boundary legislation, except the reason now helpfully and publicly put on the record by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) and the right hon. Friend Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis): that this is being done solely for narrow, party political advantage?

Mark Harper: That was a rather grudging welcome, I thought, for our plans.
	Let me run through the questions that the right hon. Gentleman asked. His key point, set out at the beginning of his response, was to say that we were planning to speed up individual registration without safeguards, but I do not think that he can have listened to my statement. He specifically referred to the Northern Ireland experience, but what we are doing is entirely because of the Northern Ireland experience, where there was a significant drop in the numbers on the electoral register, albeit one that most people thought was greater than what we could have expected from just removing those who were on the register who should not have been. Clearly we would expect some reduction with individual registration, because there are some people on the register who should not be. However, the Northern Ireland experience is exactly what we are trying to avoid, by not removing people from the register before the next election if they have not registered individually-as I set out right at the beginning of my statement-so I do not think that that issue is valid.
	The right hon. Gentleman quoted my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) as saying that she was clear that we did not want to undermine democracy. The whole point of the safeguards and the data-matching that I have outlined, along with the careful way in which we are going to proceed, is exactly so that we end up with a register that is more accurate and more complete than the one that we have today.
	On fraud, the recorded statistics on electoral fraud, which come from the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Electoral Commission, show that fraudulent registration is one of the principal examples of electoral fraud, and there was cross-party agreement in the previous Parliament that it should be tackled.
	As for the Electoral Commission and the safeguard to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, as I made clear in my statement, the Electoral Commission will absolutely be involved in the process, advising us on the data-matching pilots. We have worked closely with the Electoral Commission and yesterday, when the chair, Jenny Watson, gave evidence to the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, she welcomed individual registration, making it clear that it was an opportunity to give individuals responsibility for their vote. She also said that introducing individual registration would enable focused programmes to improve registration rates and gave some examples of programmes in Northern Ireland to encourage young people to vote. We will continue to work closely with the Electoral Commission, which has set out some important principles that we plan to follow.
	As for under-registration, I made it clear in my remarks that we think that getting people who are eligible to vote on to the electoral register is as important as dealing with people who should not be on it. That is why we set out the proposal not to get rid of people in the first instance, but to improve data-matching, so that we can put some proactive plans in place to tackle under-registration. However, the boundary review will take place on exactly the same basis as the last one. We will use the existing electoral register, as with the previous boundary review, which took place under the previous Government, but under our proposals there will be more frequent boundary reviews-once a Parliament-so that we use the most up-to-date registration data and seats bear more relation to up-to-date electoral data.
	On a positive note, I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's concurrence that he will work with us on the pilots. I shall write to those local authorities this week, and I shall be happy to work with all parties in the House to look at ways of improving electoral registration across the country, so that we have a more complete electoral register.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr Speaker: Order. A great many right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, so I appeal for short questions and short answers.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the shadow Lord Chancellor for his courtesy in telling me a short while ago that he was going to mention what I had said on this matter. As this might really be his very last appearance at the Dispatch Box-we hope for a Frank Sinatra-style comeback, of course-I should like to pay tribute to him and wish him well on behalf of Members on both sides of the House. He will recall that we have argued over this matter for more than five years. The previous Government delayed and delayed, but at the eleventh hour they at last brought in individual voter registration. However, they still built in delays. Of course I have said in the past that I do not want anything to undermine the integrity of the democratic system, and I stick to that, but nothing that the Minister has said today appears to undermine that integrity. On the contrary, he has said that he will proceed carefully, step by step, and he has assured us that he has learned from the Northern Ireland experience. Also, the new system that he has devised will save money as well as time.

Mark Harper: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments, and I agree with every word that she said, including her fulsome tribute to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). I thank her for her intervention.

Mr Speaker: I am especially grateful.

Christopher Leslie: Of course individual registration might improve security, but it will also raise the threshold for engaging in the voting process. Is the Minister today announcing a reduction in the amount of money that goes to electoral registration officers? In his statement, it sounded as though he was taking about £74 million away, but could he be more specific about the phasing of the budget for councils?

Mark Harper: What I announced was that proceeding with the voluntary phase was going to cost £74 million, and we are doing away with that. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of the House, and he would not expect me to announce things that are going to be announced in the comprehensive spending review. I am confident, however, that the funds that we need to implement this in a sensible way will be forthcoming.

Simon Hughes: The Minister's statement is very welcome. May I ask him to invite leaders of all parties in the House together to maximise our input into getting all those electors on to the list who should be on it? I should like to suggest that this November should be a democracy month, involving a campaign to do that, so that the register published in December has the maximum number of people on it for the immediate and long-term future.

Mark Harper: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion. I said in my statement that I wanted to work with local authorities and with Members of the House to promote electoral registration. His second idea is a very good one, and I shall think about it some more and see what we can do, ahead of the registration for this December, to make a significant impact.

Fiona Mactaggart: In my constituency, five Conservatives were jailed or convicted following illegal registrations. They will probably be the last people to be convicted of that, because Lydia Simmons, whose seat was stolen, still faces a legal bill of hundreds of thousands of pounds, which were not available because the Conservative party did not pay the costs of their representatives. When looking at this issue, will the Minister see whether there are ways of making funds available to prosecute criminally illegal registration in such cases? I should also like to ask whether he is changing the law when he says:
	"Whether a person chooses to register or not should be their individual choice."
	I did not think that that was the case in law at present, and I wonder whether his statement is announcing a legal change

Mark Harper: The hon. Lady would not seriously expect me to comment on individual cases, particularly when I do not have the details of them. On her second point, people are not legally obliged to register to vote. If they receive inquiries from the local authority-the household registration form or some other inquiry-they are legally obliged to respond to them accurately, but there is no obligation on individuals to register at all. When registration is a household matter, and a person is responsible for registering other people, it is right that that should be obligatory, but when individuals take responsibility for their own registration, it is perfectly reasonable to say that it is up to them whether they choose to register-  [ Interruption. ] We live in a free society, and people are entitled to decide whether they wish to be registered to vote and to cast their vote. That is the position today, and it will remain unchanged.

Henry Smith: I very much welcome the Minister's statement today. He mentioned the checking of national insurance numbers. These are of course available to people who are not citizens of this country or other eligible countries. What sort of citizenship or nationality checks will be carried out on those people?

Mark Harper: Electoral registration officers already have to undertake a number of checks to confirm that people are eligible to vote, particularly in different sets of elections. My hon. Friend will know that, for example, in order to vote in a general election, a person has to be a citizen of the United Kingdom or a qualifying citizen of the Irish Republic or the Commonwealth. Those checks will remain as they are now. The checking of the date of birth, signature and national insurance number will enable the registration officers to be confident about someone's identity, which will enable those other checks to be more accurate.

Angus MacNeil: In these days of value for money and cost effectiveness, does the Minister see any merit in people who are in receipt of a state benefit, and thereby already encountering an arm of the state, automatically being registered to vote? The same could apply to people paying council tax, as he mentioned in his statement.

Mark Harper: While we are looking into data-matching, we are also going to look at other public databases-the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned a couple-to see whether, using that information, we can contact people who are eligible to vote but who are not on the register. They could then be contacted to check their further eligibility-their citizenship, for example-and encouraged to register to vote. The hon. Gentleman has made a useful and worthwhile point.

Andrew Tyrie: I warmly welcome this statement. It is long overdue, and I am very glad that we are now going to have individual voter registration. I hope that the Government will also make a statement shortly on postal voting. Postal voting on demand has undoubtedly increased fraud. Will the Government look into that, and will they take some action to curb it?

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend would not expect me to anticipate future announcements. Today's proposals represent one stage in improving the electoral system, and we shall be looking at others in the future. I have heard what he has said, and I shall think on it some more.

Chris Ruane: There are currently 3.5 million people missing from the electoral register, many of whom are the most needy people in the country, and they form a significant part of our work load. Measures have been put in place by the previous Government and this Government, and I welcome the proposals to improve registration announced today. The issue is one of timing. These measures will take time to settle in, and the freeze date for the boundary review is December. In the interests of fairness, bipartisanship and an equitable work load for MPs, will the Minister consider using estimated eligible electorates as the basis for the calculation of new seats in December? Those voters could then be registered when the new measures came into effect, and there would be no fiddling.

Mark Harper: I take exception to the hon. Gentleman's use of the word "fiddling". The boundary review proposed in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill will be carried out on exactly the same basis as previous reviews, using the same electoral register and based on the same data. I acknowledge that there are people who are eligible to vote who have not chosen to register, and that is why we have put in place measures to deal with that. My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) has made some helpful suggestions about what we could do this year, and we plan to fix this. When the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) raised this matter on Second Reading, I responded by saying that we would put in place measures to tackle under-registration, and I hope that he will be happy with what we have announced today.

Tessa Munt: At the moment, we send national insurance numbers to young people who are approaching their 16th birthday, yet, on the declaration form that goes to the local authority, only those who are 17 and older are identified. How can we ensure that we pick up those who are 16 and over and put them into the registration process in anticipation? Would it be possible to promote this through the schools system? The other thing I would like to ask is about the arrangements that are going to be made to check up on those living abroad. What will happen? Is there any capacity to-

Mr Speaker: Order. May I gently explain to the hon. Lady that on these occasions, Members should ask a single, short supplementary question? She has had a good run, but we will leave it there for today.

Mark Harper: The hon. Lady's first point was valid. This is indeed something that the chief electoral registration officer in Northern Ireland has been doing-working with schools and also picking up the points the hon. Lady makes about national insurance numbers. In her evidence to the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform yesterday, the chair of the Electoral Commission drew attention to the work in Northern Ireland that has been particularly effective at getting younger voters on the register. That is exactly the sort of thing that we will be able to do once we introduce individual registration and make individuals responsible for registering to vote.

Stephen Twigg: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) said, under-registration disproportionately hits the poorest, the youngest, the most mobile and ethnic minorities in our communities. I welcome the data-matching pilots, but surely it cannot make sense to go ahead with a radical redrawing of parliamentary boundaries before those pilots have taken place. If the Minister is sincere in wishing to conduct a cross-party review, let us have that review, look at the evidence and only then look at a radical redrawing of parliamentary boundaries.

Mark Harper: I simply do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point. The last boundary review that came into place for the recent general election was done using the existing electoral registers, and at least some people not on them were eligible to vote. I have already responded to that point. I am very pleased to work with colleagues on both sides of the House to ensure that more people who are eligible to vote are on the register. I set that out in my statement and I made it clear that the Government are as interested in the completeness of the register as they are in ensuring its accuracy.

Julian Lewis: My hon. Friend is taking steps that go a considerable way towards restoring integrity to individual voting, but may I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), that, given that we value individual booths for privacy at the polling station, the over-extension of postal voting destroys that degree of privacy, at least within households? The Minister should look at this question again. People should have postal votes because they need them, not just on demand.

Mark Harper: I hear what my hon. Friend-and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie)-says, and I will think further on it. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) will welcome the announcement in my statement that although we are going to leave people on the register who have not individually registered ahead of the general election, those who want to exercise a postal or proxy vote-the areas of greatest concern-will have had to register individually, ensuring an extra safeguard.

Jim Shannon: The Minister has outlined some changes in electoral reform, which we are glad to see happening. Whenever we go knocking on doors, as we do every time there is an election, people always tell us at the last minute that they thought they were on the list, but they have moved house and so forth. Is it possible to allow late registration even beyond the time currently allowed?

Mark Harper: Our proposals in the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, which will set fixed parliamentary terms so that election dates become more predictable, should enable organisations such as the Electoral Commission and local authorities to run campaigns to improve registration ahead of specific elections. We will know when the date of the election will be. The hon. Gentleman thus makes a valid point. Under our fixed-term Parliament proposals, it should be easier to deliver what he suggests.

David Nuttall: Does the Minister have any plans to improve the process of checking the identity of voters at the polling station in order to reduce the risk of impersonation?

Mark Harper: That suggestion has been put forward, and it happens in Northern Ireland. We are thinking about and considering it further. If the Government decide to bring forward any such proposals, we will announce them in the House.

Kevin Brennan: If the Minister wants data-matching, it is not a few paltry pilots that he needs; he could do it right across the country. As to his statement that whether a person chooses to register should be an individual choice and in light of his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), I thought that it was a citizen's duty to register to vote. Is this for ever going to be known as the Harper doctrine-"If you don't feel like registering to vote, don't bother"?

Mark Harper: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that citizens should register to vote. I said in my statement that we want a complete register, so the Government clearly want the maximum number of people to register. The issue is whether we believe the law should say that someone should register and whether there should be a criminal sanction if they do not. I do not think that there should be. Indeed, in her evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee yesterday, the chair of Electoral Commission said:
	"I think the idea that your vote is yours and it is not somebody else's-you need to take some responsibility for it-will help and enable registration officers to do more work."
	The Government are very clear: we think people should register to vote and we want them to do so, we just do not think there should be a criminal sanction if they choose not to.

Andrew Stephenson: I welcome what the Minister said about individual voter registration, which I believe is long overdue. Two of my hon. Friends have already raised the issue of restricting postal and proxy votes, and I would like to add my voice to theirs, urging the Minister to consider reintroducing the restrictions-they were never removed in Northern Ireland-as the key way of tackling electoral fraud in this country.

Mark Harper: Again, as with my hon. Friends the Members for Chichester and for New Forest East, I have clearly heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) has said. I cannot add anything to what I said before-that I will reflect further on the matter.

Chi Onwurah: Only 84% of registration forms are returned in Newcastle because we are a large city with a large student and deprived population. I have always considered it to be a crime that people should lose their right to vote because of a moment's inattention. In view of the coalition Government's "big society", is the Minister saying that there is no obligation to register to vote?

Mark Harper: No, I did not say that at all. What I said was that with the current household registration, where one is not just responsible for one's individual vote but for other people's too, the law requires that when sent a form or approached for information, one has to give it. When this becomes one's individual responsibility and the only person affected is yourself, I simply said that I did not think that it should be a matter for the criminal law.
	On the issue of why people choose not to register to vote, the most common reason given is that people have moved house so that voting was not high up on the list of things to be done. For an awful lot of people-almost a fifth of those not registered-it happens because they have not bothered. As MPs and politicians, we all have to persuade electors that they should bother to register. Then, when they have registered, the next challenge is to give them a reason for coming out and using their vote at elections-something that does not happen enough today.

Duncan Hames: Under the Minister's plans for individual registration, does he intend local authorities to collect as a matter of course individuals' titles so that those using the electoral roll respectfully to engage with the electorate can do so with due courtesy?

Mark Harper: That is not something I thought of announcing today, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that for politicians it is sometimes frustrating when we do not have people's correct titles and we end up with our individual computer programmes guessing what they are, often getting them wrong. I will think further about this, but we should remember that in view of all the pieces of information we already ask local authorities to collect, process and deal with, which are not essential for voting, we must be careful not to impose extra burdens. As I say, I will think further about it.

Tom Harris: Despite my reservations about individual registration, I welcome what the Minister said about data-sharing pilots and I hope he will consider Glasgow as a candidate for such a pilot. However, if we are going to all this great effort to share all these databases in order to identify people who have deliberately chosen not to register to vote up until now, what is the point of the exercise if, having identified those people, we are not going to oblige them to register? What is the point of that exercise?

Mark Harper: There are two questions there. On the first, I shall be writing to all local authorities responsible for registration suggesting that they engage with the pilots. The best thing the hon. Gentleman can do is to speak to his council and his registration officer and encourage them to participate. On his second point, quite a lot of people have not deliberately chosen not to register. As I said, one of the key reasons is that people have simply moved and have not got around to registering. Some people do not know how to register. Many would do so if it were easier, and if they were clearer about what they had to do. I think that if we approach them, tell them that they are eligible to vote and explain how they can do so, we will improve the rate of registration. However, in a free society, if someone deliberately chooses not to register to vote, that is a matter for them.

Philip Hollobone: Parliamentary democracy cannot function at its best if nearly 10% of our citizens are not registered. May I urge my hon. Friend to think again? I think most people believe that registration is a civic duty, and that they would be surprised by what he has said today. May I encourage him to make it a legal requirement for people to register when he introduces legislation?

Mark Harper: I made it clear that I, too, think that registration is a civic duty. However, making it a legal requirement presents the challenge of deciding what sanctions should apply to those who do not register. I do not think that, in a free society, it would be right to imprison someone who chose not to register to vote, or to hit them with a huge fine. In a free society, people should be free not to register to vote without incurring a criminal penalty.

Anne Begg: I cannot help thinking that we are making voting more difficult for people, and placing more and more barriers in their way, when we ought to be making the process easier. We have all observed that during general elections. It applies not just to the young, the elderly and the disabled, but to people who lives in houses in multiple occupation, especially those living in flats in Glasgow and some industrial areas. It will be difficult to carry out data-matching in such circumstances. I am glad that it is to be piloted, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) pointed out, unless it is followed up and the electoral registration officers are much more proactive than they have been so far, it will be a wasted exercise.

Mark Harper: The hon. Lady makes a good point. One of the reasons for the data-matching pilots is to enable electoral registration officers to identify people who may be eligible to vote but are not on the register. They can then focus their efforts on that. As I have said, there is evidence that specific procedures to target younger voters and others who are not currently on the register have been very successful in Northern Ireland.

Tony Baldry: A significant number of United Kingdom citizens living overseas are entitled to vote, but at the last general election a not particularly significant proportion registered or, indeed, voted. How will my hon. Friend ensure that more of them are encouraged and able to register? Could UK embassies, high commissions and consulates be better used to encourage them to register individually?

Tom Harris: I have received and replied to a number of written questions along the same lines recently. The Government are considering those issues, and if we have proposals to present we will, of course, announce them to the House first.

Keith Vaz: Resources will obviously be crucial to the success of the project. A significant proportion of British and Commonwealth citizens in my constituency do not have English as a first language. What additional resources will be given to local authorities such as Leicester to enable them to deal with that important issue, and will the Minister meet a delegation to discuss it?

Mark Harper: I should, of course, be pleased to meet a delegation from the right hon. Gentleman or, indeed, from any other Members who wish to discuss these issues. As for the right hon. Gentleman's first question, he will know that local authorities receive funds from their revenue support grant and other resources enabling them to carry out electoral registration. He would not expect me to make specific announcements about the proposals for funding this project before the spending review, but I am confident that it will be properly resourced.

Nicholas Boles: Is my hon. Friend as puzzled as I am by the argument of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), which appears to be that we cannot adopt fully equal constituencies until we have dealt with the inadequacies of the register over which his party presided, and we cannot do anything to introduce the improvements in the register at any more than a glacial pace? Is not this obstructionism the real attempt to use the electoral system for partisan advantage?

Mark Harper: It seemed a bit churlish to point out in my statement that if there were problems with the state of the electoral register, it was not the parties on this side of the House that had been in government for the past 13 years, which is, I think, the point that my hon. Friend was making. Let me make it clear that we want to improve the state of the register, but the fact that it is not perfect should not mean that we cannot continue with the boundary review. The last Government conducted a boundary review, and we are conducting the review of the register on exactly the same basis.
	It is worth pointing out that our electoral register contains the names of about 91 or 92% of eligible voters. In that regard, we compare very well with other comparable democracies. However, we are not complacent, and we want to improve our registration levels still further.

Mark Tami: My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) gave the example of Northern Ireland, where individual registration saw dramatic falls, especially in poorer areas. What extra resources will the Minister give local authorities, and-this is very important-will he ring-fence those resources to prevent authorities from spending them on other things?

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman has raised two issues. The fact that individual registration was implemented overnight in Northern Ireland led to that sharp drop, not all of which was accounted for by the removal of people who should not have been on the register because they were not eligible to vote in the first place, which is one reason for introducing individual registration. It is because we do not want to see a similar dramatic fall here that I announced the safeguard that we would not remove people from the register immediately, and certainly not before the next general election.
	As for the hon. Gentleman's second point about resources and ring-fencing, it is a difficult argument. Local authorities generally take exception to central Government's giving them ring-fenced amounts and micro-managing what they do. I know that it can be argued that central Government should say that this is a different area, but that is not a view that has been taken so far. I will think about the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but I do not think that the Government will pursue it.

Paul Uppal: Without simply reiterating the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), I ask the Minister to take on board my deep concern about postal voting fraud. Although I welcome individual registration, I fear that it will not wholly tackle that problem, to which I have referred before.
	In my constituency-I must choose my words carefully, because the case is currently being investigated by the Electoral Commission-200 more votes were cast than electoral ballots were issued. I want to impress on the Minister a point that was raised with me recently by a constituent. He said that Labour Members were going from door to door asking if people wanted them to help them to fill out postal voting forms.

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend would not expect me to comment on an ongoing investigation, and I will not do so, but he has raised the issue of why it is important to make the accuracy of the electoral register more secure. We intend to deal with the public perception as well as the reality of the fraudulent registrations that have occurred. As I said in my statement, a third of the public are worried about the security of registration in our voting system, and it is important to the maintaining of confidence in our democracy for us to deal with those real concerns.

Mark Durkan: The Minister has said that the proposed carry-over from 2014 to 2015 is designed to avoid the adverse effects experienced in Northern Ireland, but he has also said that those who carry over will be disqualified from postal or proxy voting. Will that disqualification be noted on the register? Among the groups who lost out in Northern Ireland were the long-term sick and disabled, who made the mistake of believing that being on the standing list for postal votes was the same as being permanently registered.

Mark Harper: Those people will not be disqualified from postal or proxy voting, but if they wish to have a postal or proxy vote, they will have to supply their personal identifiers. Those who are already signed up for postal or proxy voting and have already supplied their signatures and dates of birth will have to renew those details from time to time and undergo a verification check. The information will be due at some point in the future in any event, and we are investigating whether we can synchronise the processes to avoid duplication.

Bob Blackman: I warmly welcome the step to speed up the process of individual registration, but the overwhelming majority of people in the UK do not move from one year to the next. Although I completely agree with having security for the initial registration-supplying national insurance numbers and, most importantly, signatures-because the vast majority of people do not move every year, will the Minister consider sticking with the current position of allowing annual renewals on the list to be done by, for instance, the internet or telephone, rather than having to supply a signature every year?

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend makes a good point. People who are on the register, and who have supplied the identifiers and where verification has taken place, will not have to supply the identifiers and go through that check every year if there are no changes to their details. I thank him for making that point, which has enabled me to make that clear to the House.

Clive Betts: Data-matching and data-sharing will be key if we are to ensure that thousands of people are not removed from the register as a result of this process. Will the Minister therefore confirm that the pilots will look at as wide a range of data sources as possible? Will he give an assurance that he will look at sources from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the Department for Work and Pensions, for instance, and from universities, colleges and schools as young people are often not registered? Will he also consider looking at sources from utilities in the private sector, given that they form an important part of the registration process in Australia?

Mark Harper: I thank the Chairman of the Communities and Local Government Committee for raising that point. As well as writing to local authorities, I will write to a number of other organisations, including civil society bodies, in looking for ideas on how to tackle this issue. I said in my statement that we will look at public databases. Other issues arise if we want to look at private databases, but we are considering that too as we want to use a wide variety of sources. As I will be writing to local authorities, I urge hon. Members who are concerned about registration to speak to their local authorities and to encourage them to participate in those pilots. We want a wide range of authorities to take part, and we want to look at a range of data sources because we want to discover which of them are the most effective before we roll this out across the country.

David Morris: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the statement. I have listened to what hon. Members have said, and it seems to me that while nobody will be removed from the register, there is a certain amount of uncertainty in respect of eligibility to vote. Through these various registration documents, will the Minister consider giving people a particular number that could be annexed on to the national insurance number?

Tom Harris: An ID card.

David Morris: No, not an ID card. Far from it; it will be a number, and that number will transfer with them if they move addresses. That would be-

Tom Harris: An ID card.

David Morris: It would not be an ID card. It would be a number that was unique to each person.

Mark Harper: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The whole point of using the national insurance number as the check is that it is a number that is attached to the individual. I think my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) were in danger of anticipating the debate to come on removing ID cards and the national identity register.

Geraint Davies: Given that one in five people in Britain are functionally illiterate and therefore incapable of filling in forms, and that many more cannot even speak English, does the Minister accept that there will be a systemic deregistration of people? Therefore, will he undertake to ensure that his review of boundaries is done on the basis of population taken from the census, rather than on a corrupted registration based on individual-and, we now hear, voluntary-registration of certain social groups?

Mark Harper: If the level of functional illiteracy in our country is as high as that, it does not say very much for the education policies of the Labour party, which was in power for the last 13 years. The whole point-

Chris Ruane: The Conservative party has been in power for 40 of the last 60 years.

Mark Harper: The whole point about- [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. May I just say to the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) that anybody would think he was auditioning to be a television sports commentator judging by the frequency of his sedentary interventions? He had his go much earlier-he did very well out of me. He should now listen to the Minister's reply.

Mark Harper: The whole point of using the data-matching pilots and so forth is so that the electoral registration office can identify eligible voters and encourage them to register to vote. It would not be right to use population data because constituencies should be based on eligible voters and not everyone who lives in a certain area is eligible to vote in parliamentary elections. That is why it is not right to use census data. We should use electoral registration data instead.

Greg Mulholland: Will the Minister look at the specific issue of college and university students who live at both a term-time address and a different address during the rest of the year? Some are registered in both places, some in one place, and others in none. The result is that, as in Leeds North West, the turnout figures are misleading because quite a number of those people have voted elsewhere. I feel this needs particular consideration. May I have a conversation with the Minister about it?

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is, of course, perfectly lawful for individuals to be registered in more than one place-they may do so if they occupy two properties, for example-although it is not lawful for them to vote more than once for the same body. The much-quoted survey about people who are not registered did not address one particular aspect of that issue: quite a lot of students who it said were not registered to vote at their term-time address are, of course, registered to vote at their home or parental address. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and I would be very pleased to meet him to discuss it.

Andrew Love: I am not sure whether the Minister is aware that there is considerable concern about the answers he gave to my hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), and that that concern appears to be shared by Members of the coalition parties. The Minister has regularly mentioned the Electoral Commission. What consultations did he have with it prior to making his statement? Is it his intention that it will continue to have, as the Opposition Front-Bench team has said it would, the role it was given in the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009? If he is serious about avoiding the consequences that arose in Northern Ireland, will he be flexible about the imposition of compulsory individual registration in order to take into account the difficulties that may arise?

Mark Harper: We have, of course, been working closely with the Electoral Commission. My officials have been working with its officials, and both the Deputy Prime Minister and I have met its chair and chief executive to discuss these matters. I think I can accurately say that they are content with our approach. We plan to keep them involved in the process: we want them both to assess the data-matching pilots and, as we move forward, to comment publicly on the completeness and accuracy of the electoral register so that there is an independent check on the progress the Government make.

Nigel Dodds: The experience in Northern Ireland has been mentioned on a number of occasions, and one of the lessons from our experience has been that resources need to be put into the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland-or the local councils here in Britain-to get to people who are hard to reach in terms of registration. Can the Minister give a commitment that resources will be available? Also, I welcome the fact that he says his proposals will be achieved on the basis of consensus-building, working with other political parties and having pre-legislative scrutiny, but why does he not adopt the same approach on other important issues such as fixed-term Parliaments?

Mark Harper: The right hon. Gentleman asks a number of questions. On the point about pre-legislative scrutiny, I hope hon. Members will be encouraged by that approach. Whether we can have pre-legislative scrutiny partly comes down to timing. Both my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I have explained that point: early in a new Parliament Governments simply have to get on with some things and cannot delay everything. However, we plan to legislate to bring in these proposals in 2014. We will introduce proposals in a draft Bill. Colleagues on both sides of the House will have the chance to scrutinise them, and we will listen to what they have to say before introducing a Bill for scrutiny in both Houses.

Points of Order

Derek Twigg: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During Prime Minister's Question Time, I asked the Prime Minister a question about the future of the Mersey Gateway bridge and the impact of cutting capital projects on economic growth. The Prime Minister said specifically and clearly that the Government were not going to cut capital projects. That seems to contradict what I have been told on the Floor of the House and in letters: that a decision on the Mersey Gateway bridge is postponed pending the review of expenditure. Incidentally, that is in stark contrast to the cancellation of the Building Schools for the Future programme, which is a capital programme, the cancellation of which has badly hit my constituency. Can you, Mr Speaker, arrange for an urgent statement to be made to the House to clarify the position on the bridge because we do not want to be in a situation where the Prime Minister is misleading the House?

Mr Speaker: I can make no such arrangement. What I say to the hon. Gentleman in response to his attempted point of order is that he is a wily old hand, and some people might think-this could be uncharitable, but it might not be-that he is seeking to continue the debate. He has put his views very clearly on the record, and I have a feeling they will be heard where he wishes them to be heard. Moreover, if he wishes to follow up his grave concern on this matter with questions of one form or another and in other parliamentary ways, it is open to him to do so, and I have a hunch that he will.

Denis MacShane: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hope that this is in order. I was concerned to read in  The Guardian today a statement from Jenny Watson of the Electoral Commission which was based on evidence that she gave yesterday. She said that she could not really accept amendments to the alternative vote and boundary change Bill after November and that if their lordships amended it, that would make her life very difficult. Is it right for the head of an Executive agency so to dictate to or tell both the other place and, as their lordships' amendments come back here, this place what they can and cannot amend and when they can and cannot amend it? You have been very good in bringing Ministers to the House to be held to account by Members, but the Executive consist of more than Government Ministers; we have these new agencies, the Electoral Commission in this case and the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority in others, where there are deep concerns about whether MPs can carry out their duties. This new state within a state just does not seem to be accountable and has an awful lot of influence.

Mr Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has made his point, but we cannot have an oration on the matter. We have had a point of order-we are grateful for that-to which I will respond after I have heard from the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing).

Eleanor Laing: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I had no idea that the right hon. Gentleman was going to raise it and I have not read the report in  The Guardian, but I am a member of that Committee and was at its sitting yesterday morning. What the report describes is not what the chairman of the Electoral Commission said; in fact, it is quite close to a point that I raised in that Committee sitting with the chairman of the Electoral Commission about the significance of the date of 5 November being six months before a proposed referendum. What the right hon. Gentleman has just read from  The Guardian is not my recollection of what occurred yesterday, and I thought it was as well to raise that.

Mr Speaker: Not for the first time, and I am sure not for the last, there is a disagreement on what the evidence is. What I would say to the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) and to the hon. Member for Epping Forest is that I am not responsible for what is or, alternatively, is not said by people outside this House. There is, of course, a system for the House to consult external parties, and there is a chance for Members to move amendments on which the views of others have been given. The Bill to which reference is being made is, of course, a Bill that has been committed to a Committee of the whole House, and the situation is that people are free to volunteer their views to the Committee on the Bill. The Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform is also conducting an inquiry into the implications of the Bill and, doubtless, it will report any views in due course. I see nothing amiss in what has occurred, but in the course of these brief exchanges the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady have placed their views fairly and squarely on the record.

BILL PRESENTED
	 — 
	Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, Mr Secretary Lansley, Secretary Michael Gove, Danny Alexander, Mr Mark Hoban, Mr David Gauke and Justine Greening, presented a Bill to make provision about eligibility for a child trust fund; to repeal the Saving Gateway Accounts Act 2009; to make provision about entitlement to health in pregnancy grant; and for connected purposes.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 73) with explanatory notes (Bill 73-EN).

Financial Services (Regulation of Deposits and Lending)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No.  23)

Douglas Carswell: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit banks and building societies lending on the basis of demand deposits without the permission of the account holder; and for connected purposes.
	Who owns the money in your bank account? That small question has profound implications. According to a survey by Ipsos MORI, more than 70% of people in the UK believe that when they deposit money with the bank, it is theirs-but it is not. Money deposited in a bank account is, as established under case law going back more than 200 years, legally the property of the bank, rather than the account holder. Were any hon. Members to deposit £100 at their bank this afternoon or, rather improbably, if the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority was to manage to do so on any Member's behalf, the bank would then be free to lend on approximately £97 of it. Even under the new capital ratio requirements, the bank could lend on more than 90% of what one deposited. Indeed, bank A could then lend on £97 of the initial £100 deposit to another bank-bank B-which could then lend on 97% of the value. The lending would go round and round until, as we saw at the height of the credit boom, for every £1 deposited banks would have piled up more than £40-worth of accumulated credit of one form or another.
	Banks enjoy a form of legal privilege extended to no other area of business that I am aware of-it is a form of legal privilege. I am sure that some hon. Members, in full compliance with IPSA rules, may have rented a flat, and they do not need me, or indeed IPSA, to explain that having done so they are, in general, not allowed to sub-let it to someone else. Anyone who tried to do that would find that their landlord would most likely eject them. So why are banks allowed to sub-let people's money many times over without their consent?
	My Bill would give account holders legal ownership of their deposits, unless they indicated otherwise when opening the account. In other words, there would henceforth be two categories of bank account: deposit-taking accounts for investment purposes, and deposit-taking accounts for storage purposes. Banks would remain at liberty to lend on money deposited in the investment accounts, but not on money deposited in the storage accounts. As such, the idea is not a million miles away from the idea of 100% gilt-backed storage accounts proposed by other hon. Members and the Governor of the Bank of England.
	My Bill is not just a consumer-protection measure; it also aims to remove a curious legal exemption for banks that has profound implications on the whole economy. Precisely because they are able to treat one's deposit as an investment in a giant credit pyramid, banks are able to conjure up credit. In most industries, when demand rises businesses produce more in response. The legal privilege extended to banks prevents that basic market mechanism from working, with disastrous consequences.
	As I shall explain, if the market mechanism worked as it should, once demand for credit started to increase in an economy, banks would raise the price of credit- interest rates-in order to encourage more savings. More folk would save as a result, as rates rose. That would allow banks to extend credit in proportion to savings. Were banks like any other business, they would find that when demand for what they supply lets rip, they would be constrained in their ability to supply credit by the pricing mechanism. That is, alas, not the case with our system of fractional reserve banking. Able to treat people's money as their own, banks can carry on lending against it, without necessarily raising the price of credit. The pricing mechanism does not rein in the growth in credit as it should. Unrestrained by the pricing mechanism, we therefore get credit bubbles. To satisfy runaway demand for credit, banks produce great candy-floss piles of the stuff. The sugar rush feels great for a while, but that sugar-rush credit creates an expansion in capacity in the economy that is not backed by real savings. It is not justified in terms of someone else's deferred consumption, so the credit boom creates unsustainable over-consumption.
	Policy makers, not least in this Chamber, regardless of who has been in office, have had to face the unenviable choice between letting the edifice of crony capitalism come crashing down, with calamitous consequences for the rest of us, or printing more real money to shore up this Ponzi scheme-and the people who built it-and in doing so devalue our currency to keep the pyramid afloat.
	Since the credit crunch hit us, an endless succession of economists, most of whom did not see it coming, have popped up on our TV screens to explain its causes with great authority. Most have tended to see the lack of credit as the problem, rather than as a symptom. Perhaps we should instead begin to listen to those economists who saw the credit glut that preceded the crash as the problem. The Cobden Centre, the Ludwig von Mises Institute and Huerta de Soto all grasped that the overproduction of bogus candy-floss credit before the crunch gave rise to it. It is time to take seriously their ideas on honest money and sound banking.
	The Keynesian-monetarist economists might recoil in horror at the idea, because their orthodoxy holds that without these legal privileges for banks, there would be insufficient credit. They say that the oil that keeps the engine of capitalism working would dry up and the machine would grind to a halt, but that is not so. Under my Bill, credit would still exist but it would be credit backed by savings. In other words, it would be credit that could fuel an expansion in economic capacity that was commensurate with savings or deferred consumption. It would be, to use the cliché of our day, sustainable.
	Ministers have spoken of their lofty ambition to rebalance the economy from one based on consumption to one founded on producing things. A good place to begin might be to allow a law that permits storage bank accounts that do not permit banks to mass-produce phoney credit in a way that ultimately favours consumers and debtors over those who create wealth. With honest money, instead of being the nation of indebted consumers that we have become, Britons might become again the producers and savers we once were.
	With a choice between the new storage accounts and investment accounts, no longer would private individuals find themselves co-opted as unwilling-and indeed unaware-investors in madcap deals through credit instruments that few even of the banks' own boards seem to understand.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That Mr Douglas Carswell and Steve Baker present the Bill.
	Mr Douglas Carswell accordingly presented the Bill.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 November and to be printed (Bill 71).

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Electoral Commission

[Relevant document: The First Report from the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, Appointment of nominated Commissioners to the Electoral Commission, HC 320.]
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6) and Order, 19 July),
	That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint as Electoral Commissioners-
	(1) Angela Frances, Baroness Browning, with effect from 1 October 2010 for the period ending on 30 September 2014;
	(2) David Ross Howarth, with effect from 1 October 2010 for the period ending on 30 September 2014;
	(3) Roy Francis, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, with effect from 1 October 2010 for the period ending on 30 September 2014; and
	(4) Rt. Hon. George Newlands Reid, with effect from 1 October 2010 for the period ending on 30 September 2012. -(Mr Vara .)
	 Question accordingly agreed to.

Ways and Means
	 — 
	Amendment of the Law

David Gauke: I beg to move,
	That-
	(1) It is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance.
	(2) This Resolution does not extend to the making of any amendment with respect to value added tax so as to provide-
	(a) for zero-rating or exempting a supply, acquisition or importation,
	(b) for refunding an amount of tax,
	(c) for any relief, other than a relief that-
	(i) so far as it is applicable to goods, applies to goods of every description, and
	(ii) so far as it is applicable to services, applies to services of every description.
	The resolution and the others on the Order Paper enable the House to embark on its third Finance Bill of the calendar year. As Members will be aware, the general election and the need for an emergency Budget meant constrained timetables in legislating for tax measures this year. We have the opportunity in this Bill to examine the technical measures that will benefit from the intense debates Upstairs that I know so many of my colleagues enjoy. I will look forward to seeing many of them on the Benches with me.
	The first Finance Bill introduced by this Government legislated for the key measures in our emergency Budget. The Government needed to take quick and decisive action to reassure the country and the markets that we would not allow debt to spiral out of control. However, there remain a number of minor and technical measures that we inherited from the previous Government, which must be legislated for before 2011. The resolutions before us today form the foundation for such a Bill.
	It is perhaps worth pointing out that, alongside the Budget, I set out a proposed new approach to tax policy making that we have been discussing with interested parties over the summer. As part of this new approach to making tax policy, the Government are committed to being more transparent and to improving the scrutiny of tax legislation. As a first step towards that, we published all the legislation that will be included in the Bill in draft for consultation on 12 July. Representative bodies described that as a "welcome move" and the consultation has received more than 40 comments, leading to a number of technical changes to the legislation. That approach provides additional scrutiny, which we believe is essential in demonstrating that the Government are genuinely listening to how the tax system can be improved.
	Detailed examination of the Bill is for another day, but I want briefly to explain some of what is before us. The Bill will provide for improved treatment of company distributions and ease restrictions on research and development tax credits. It will relieve carers of unnecessary tax and assist trusts to help victims of asbestos exposure. Although small in nature, the Bill will introduce important measures to ensure better compliance with a better tax system.
	In conclusion, the Bill on which the resolutions are based will take forward many necessary changes in the tax system that make a difference to the broader public. The Government are making these changes responsibly, having consulted on all the legislation. I hope it will find support among Members on both sides of the House.

Stephen Timms: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation and I agree with the welcome, to which he drew attention, for the consultation on and publication online of the proposed measures before the summer break.
	There is still no good reason for this year's post-election finance legislation being split into two Bills other than the Government's wanting to get key measures on to the statute book before all the Government Members realised fully what was going on-before, for example, they had the change to read the Institute for Fiscal Studies' Budget assessment, published last month, which stated that the Budget was "clearly regressive", or the analysis published by the TUC just a few days ago, which underlined the same point.
	We are committed in the debates that will follow to holding the Government to account on fairness and to scrutinising closely the quality of the legislation that the Government propose, which I hope will reflect the benefit of the consultation to which the Minister referred. The Opposition will be busy once the Bill is in front of us, both on the Floor of the House and in Committee, but we have no reason to oppose the resolutions and we are happy for them to proceed.

Stewart Hosie: Let me go back over the last three Finance Bills that have become Acts. In 2009, we had 127 clauses and 61 schedules-the normal Finance Bill that we have all spent many pleasurable months Upstairs considering. The first Finance Act of 2010 had 70 clauses and 20 schedules, and then we had the very brief Finance (No. 2) Act 2010, which had 11 clauses and five schedules. The Minister tells us today that there is a requirement for a third Finance Bill this year to cover 18 areas-he described them as minor technical measures. It might well be the case that they are measures that are time-limited to some extent and must be considered. However, my difficulty is that there will be two full years between 2009 and 2011 before we get a full Finance Bill. That Bill is important in terms of scrutiny because it consolidates and brings together all the tax and duty measures in a single Bill and gives Parliament the opportunity to consider in the round the comprehensive impact of all these measures together rather than doing so piecemeal, which is what is being done here, notwithstanding the technical reasons behind that.
	I have no particular problem with the measures that are to be debated-I think that some of them will be sensible-but I am looking for some confirmation before I make a final determination on this measure that when we get to 2011 there will again be a full, comprehensive Finance Bill so that we can see all the tax, duty and other financial measures in a single Bill for proper detailed consideration Upstairs over the months it normally takes. I hope that the Minister can give us some assurance that once we have got past this limited No. 3 Finance Bill, future Finance Bills will not be delivered in this way and will once again be full and comprehensive.

Christopher Leslie: I want to make a couple of specific points about the motion. Although I accept that the Minister has said that the Finance Bill will be quite narrow in scope, there are a couple of provisions in the motion that suggest that there could be an opportunity for the Treasury to introduce a series of other measures. The Minister, as is the practice now, tried to set out the context in which the Finance Bill would be set, and obviously the Opposition completely disagree with the Government's approach.
	It is quite clear that a strong dollop of dogma has been introduced into the Government's financial strategies. Rather than sensibly and prudently address the deficit, the Government are going far further, far faster than is necessary, which is having a dilatory impact on the economy at large. However, that is a debate for another day.
	The specific element of the motion that I want to address is item No. 6, the "Collection of income tax on payments". Senior officials from the Minister's Department have been giving evidence to the Treasury Committee this morning about the significant concern that has been expressed by many of our constituents about problems with the pay-as-you-earn system in collecting income tax that is owed, perhaps when miscalculations were made. Some reports suggest that 1.4 million people owe about £2 billion, which is an average of £1,400 each.
	There is significant concern across the country and I am glad that the permanent secretary and his colleagues have given a concession today about the interest elements being waived, in part, when sums above £2,000 are owed. That prompted me to look carefully at some of the regulations that the Minister has introduced, and I noticed that he laid statutory instrument No. 1879-the Taxes and Duties (Interest Rate) Regulations 2010-which sets out that an individual who owes money to Revenue and Customs has to pay interest on it at 3.5%, but if HMRC owes money to an individual it will pay only the absolute, basic minimum, which I think is 0.5%. That disparity is controversial and many people find it difficult to understand why, in all fairness, there is not a two-way street. I wanted to use this opportunity to highlight this issue; I have prayed against that statutory instrument and I hope that we will find time to debate it.
	In general, will the Minister iterate an apology from his Department about what has been happening with the PAYE arrangements? Will he also undertake that concessions will be given on the interest owed on any sums to try to make it a little easier for those who face an unexpected bill to bear that cost?

David Gauke: With the leave of the House, let me respond briefly to the points that have been made. First, the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) asked whether this Bill sets a precedent for future Finance Bills. The intention is to return to the usual one annual Finance Bill; that is probably enough for most Members of the House-even him. As I outlined earlier, the Bill is needed because of the general election and to take decisive action on the deficit.
	In response to the comments of the shadow Minister, I should say that it was important that the Government took decisive action and implemented the measures. Indeed, one reason for the fall in long-term interest rates in recent months might be that the Government have been determined to take decisive action and have demonstrated that by passing legislation to enable us to do so. It is right that we should take further time this year to go through some of the technical measures, and that is exactly what we will do with the Bill.
	The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) asked about the interest regime, the provisions for HMRC in relation to the late payment of tax due and the interest that applies when HMRC owes money. He will know that the provisions in the resolutions and in the Finance Bill are intended very much to tidy up and bring consistency to some areas. The overall interest structure and a unified interest rate was introduced in the Finance Act 2009, which the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) might have taken us through, and we are not departing from what was in that.
	The hon. Gentleman is right about the comments of senior HMRC officials at the Treasury Committee this morning regarding the regime for those who have underpaid tax of more than £2,000. HMRC has said throughout that a sympathetic approach would be taken in matters of hardship, but what has been announced today is the intention to make sure that everyone has an opportunity to pay off the underpaid amount without interest or penalties being applied. I am sure that will be welcomed by Members on both sides of the House.
	Having responded to the specific points that have been raised in this very short debate, I am grateful that the motions have the support of the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the motions made in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Standing Order No. 51(3)).

2. CAPITAL ALLOWANCES

Resolved,
	That provision may be made about capital allowances for foster carers and shared lives carers.

3. VENTURE CAPITAL SCHEMES

Resolved,
	That provision may be made about the enterprise investment scheme and venture capital trusts.

4. ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT INCENTIVES

Resolved,
	That provision may be made about enterprise management incentives.

5. SETTLORS' EXCESS REPAYMENTS

Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made amending section 646 of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005.

6. COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX ON PAYMENTS

Resolved,
	That provision may be made about the collection of income tax in respect of payments from which a person is required to deduct a sum representing income tax.

7. COMPANY DISTRIBUTIONS

Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about company distributions.

8. REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUSTS

Resolved,
	That provision may be made about stock dividends in connection with Real Estate Investment Trusts.

9. FINANCING COSTS AND INCOME OF GROUP COMPANIES

Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about financing costs and income of companies that are members of a group.

10. CONSORTIUM CLAIMS FOR GROUP RELIEF

Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made amending Chapter 4 of Part 5 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010.

11. VALUE ADDED TAX (SUPPLIES RELATING TO NON-BUSINESS USE OF BUSINESS ASSETS)

Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made-
	(a) repealing section 24(3) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994,
	(b) about what is to count as input tax, and
	(c) about supplies under paragraph 5(4) of Schedule 4 to that Act.

12. VALUE ADDED TAX (GAS, HEAT AND COOLING)

Resolved,
	That provision may be made about value added tax in relation to supplies of gas, heat and cooling.

13. VALUE ADDED TAX (AIRCRAFT)

Resolved,
	That provision may be made about value added tax in relation to supplies of, or relating to, aircraft.

14. VALUE ADDED TAX (POSTAL SERVICES AND TRANSPORT OF PASSENGERS)

Resolved,
	That provision may be made about value added tax in relation to supplies of postal services, supplies of goods which are incidental to such supplies and the transport of passengers.

15. TOBACCO PRODUCTS DUTY (LONG CIGARETTES)

Resolved,
	That provision may be made amending section 4 of the Tobacco Products Duty Act 1979.

16. LANDFILL TAX (LOWER RATE MATERIALS)

Resolved,
	That provision may be made about the criteria for determining what material is to be subject to the lower rate of landfill tax.

17. RECOVERY OF OVERPAID TAX

Resolved,
	That provision may be made for and in connection with the recovery of overpaid stamp duty land tax and petroleum revenue tax.

18. RELIEF FROM TAX (INCIDENTAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL CHARGES)

Resolved,
	That it is expedient to authorise any incidental or consequential charges to any duty or tax (including charges having retrospective effect) that may arise from provisions designed in general to afford relief from taxation.

Procedure (future taxation)

Resolved,
	That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills, any Finance Bill of the present Session may contain the following provisions taking effect in a future year-
	(a) provision about seafarers' earnings,
	(b) provision about the criteria for determining what material is to be subject to the lower rate of landfill tax, and
	(c) provision for and in connection with the recovery of overpaid stamp duty land tax and petroleum revenue tax.
	 Ordered,
	That a Bill be brought in upon the said Resolutions;
	That the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Vince Cable, Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, Secretary Chris Huhne, Danny Alexander, Mr Mark Hoban, Justine Greening and Mr David Gauke present the Bill.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Presentation and First Reading
	Mr David Gauke accordingly presented a Bill to grant certain duties to alter other duties and to amend the law relating to the National Debt and the Public Revenue, and to make further provision in connection with finance.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill  72)  with explanatory notes (Bill  72 -EN).

Identity Documents Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Damian Green: I beg to move,
	That the Order of 9 June (Identity Documents Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
	1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order shall be omitted.
	2. Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at this day's sitting at 7.00 pm, or three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order, whichever is the later.
	In the interests of allowing the House full debate, as the Government intend to do, we tabled this programme motion as a precautionary measure in case the previous business took us close to 7 o'clock. Looking at the clock, I suspect that this motion could best be described as otiose, but nevertheless it behoves me to move it.

Meg Hillier: We have absolutely no problem with the programme motion.
	 Question put and agreed to.

Identity Documents Bill

Consideration of Bill, not amended in the Public Bill Committee

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Identity documents for transgendered persons

(1) This section applies to a person who-
	(a) is a transgendered person,
	(b) has not been issued with a gender recognition certificate, and
	(c) is living in both the birth gender and the acquired gender.
	(2) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for the issue to any person falling within subsection (1), on the application of that person, of two copies of a passport or some other form of identity document of comparable standing, one in the birth gender of the person and the other in the acquired gender.
	(3) The form of the document referred to in subsection (2) shall be prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
	(4) Any ID card issued to a person falling within subsection (1) shall (notwithstanding section 2(2)) remain valid until it expires, or until the requirement in subsection (2) is satisfied, whichever is the earlier, and section 2(3) shall not apply in relation to any cardholder who is a person falling within subsection (1).'.- (Julie Hilling.)
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Julie Hilling: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 7, in clause 2, page 2, line 12, at end insert-
	'(7) This section is subject to section [ Identity documents for transgendered persons].'.

Julie Hilling: It is a privilege to move a new clause to a Bill in the House for the first time.
	New clause 1 relates to a group of people who are often forgotten-in fact, they seem to have been forgotten by the Government because they were not covered by the equality impact assessment on the Bill-and for whom the identity card was a valued asset because they were able to have one card in their birth gender and another in their acquired gender.
	Changing gender is not something that happens overnight. People have to go on a journey that might take several years. For the vast majority of people, it takes at least two years until they reach the position of saying that they wish to live as another person and are able to undergo gender reassignment surgery. However, many trans people choose not to undergo surgery, either because it can be dangerous, painful or unsuccessful, or for other reasons.
	Gender identity is extremely complex and there is a broad spectrum of trans individuals. At one end of the spectrum are trans individuals who commit to living in another gender and undertake gender reassignment processes to help them to achieve that, while at the other end are individuals who feel trans, but continue to live in their birth gender, even though they feel trapped in that gender. In between those two ends of the spectrum are trans individuals who feel genderless and prefer to remain gender-neutral, as well as trans individuals who genuinely identify with both genders. There are also people who identify with their non-birth gender, but need to continue to live in their birth gender in certain situations.
	In Committee, I talked about my friend who I will call Jane. Jane is still working as John in a very male-dominated industry. She is usually Jane at home, although she is not yet Jane with some of her family, especially her elderly parents, who she does not wish to upset. Jane is on a journey, but at the moment she has to live her life in two genders. It is hard to imagine the problems that arise in her life. What does she do when she wants to book a hotel room or a flight? The ability to have two identity cards has allowed her to go on holiday as Jane, but to continue to live her work life as John. Identity cards were not a full solution to the problem faced by dual-gendered people such as Jane, however. Although the scheme allowed individuals to hold cards in both genders, only one card was valid for overseas travel.
	Another trans person-I shall call her T-has contacted me to tell me about her experiences. After feeling transgendered from a young age, T has just started to take active steps to make herself physically more feminine. Of course, it takes time for the physical aspects of gender to change, so T is not yet ready to start living as a woman all the time. Anyone who has had any contact with the transgender community will know the importance of people being able to pass as the opposite gender from their birth gender.
	T is a professional working for a very conservative firm. She is only too aware of the difficulties she would face if she started to dress as a woman before she was physically able to pass. Although there is legislation to protect such people against discrimination in the workplace, she knows that she would face great difficulty in her field of work and that, if she was sacked, she would be unlikely to get another firm to take her on. She has therefore decided that she will not start living as a woman in the workplace until she is physically and mentally ready to do so.
	T is a trans person with a life away from the workplace, however. She lives as a woman at home and goes out as a woman. It is when T travels abroad as a woman that she feels most liberated with her gender identity.
	T has travelled abroad as a woman on a male passport, but that was never easy, even when travelling to relatively trans-friendly countries. Problems arose because when she presented her passport to immigration officials, not only did she look different from her passport photo, but the document stated that she was male, not female. That typically led to delays involving prolonged questioning and embarrassment, but on a few occasions the situation was more severe. In one country, she was taken for further questioning into a side room in which she was mocked and ridiculed by several male immigration officials. They refused to allow her to be frisked by a female immigration official and she was inappropriately molested by a male immigration official-one can only imagine the humiliation.
	After that incident, T decided to apply for a passport in the female gender and adopted a female name. That has had a remarkable effect on her life because she no longer faces delays and prolonged questioning. There is no more embarrassment because there is no discrepancy between the person presenting themselves to immigration officials and their passport. When travelling in certain countries, she is confident of joining queues to be frisked by women, not men. Fortunately, she has not experienced any negative issues when travelling as a female on a female passport, and she is grateful for the protection that that female passport has brought.
	The problem has not been solved completely, however, because there are still instances when T is required to travel as a man. She has not disclosed her trans status to her employer, so she has had to refuse all international travel at work because any flights and hotels would be booked by her secretary and, of course, bookings have to mirror the name and gender on a passport. Her continued refusal of international travel is likely to have an adverse effect on her career.
	The right to travel is an important aspect of the fundamental right to liberty, and T feels it is important that she travel as a woman in her early stage of transition. However, although she is dual-gendered, there will be instances when she is required to travel as a male. She is therefore in an impossible situation because how does she choose the gender for her passport? The most logical solution to the problem, as set out in the new clause, is that dual-gendered people should be allowed to be issued with two passports. Of course, some single gender people are issued with two passports, particularly when they want to travel to countries in which it is inappropriate to have the passport stamp of certain other countries, so there is a means by which two passports may be issued.
	A small number of people make up the trans community. ID cards were not a perfect solution, but they gave those people some liberation. I suggest that people should be allowed to keep their identity cards as a valid means of travel until the Government bring forward an alternative solution.
	The Government indicated in Committee that an alternative proposal would be put forward to solve the problem, but unfortunately it has not yet been presented to Labour Members. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us by telling us how the Government will resolve the problem experienced by a small group of people who benefited from identity cards, but will face difficulty due to the cards' removal.

Meg Hillier: I echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling).
	In Committee and through subsequent correspondence, I have pressed the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), on the consultation that she and her Department undertook when putting the Bill together. However, I have received no answer, so I hope she will tell the House the groups that she consulted, given that the issue did not even feature in the Government's impact assessment. This House is a tolerant House, and I know that the hon. Lady is a relatively new Minister, but if a mistake has been made, I hope she will have the decency at least to acknowledge that in the House and to apologise to the people affected, who have very little voice. However, there is a vocal group in her Department who have been influential in shaping policy across Whitehall and beyond.
	We recognise that the problem is not easy to solve-either here and now on the Floor of the House or more generally-but a small but nevertheless important provision of the Identity Cards Act 2006 was introduced to bring about the existing benefit. We do not necessarily expect a detailed answer from the Minister today, but she has not reassured me, either through correspondence or in Committee, that serious action is under way in government to address the situation. The matter is not so much one for the equalities unit, which she indicated in her last letter was examining the situation, but one for the Identity and Passport Service, which deals with identity issues for the Government as a whole.
	We want a real commitment to action today, but all I have heard from the hon. Lady-perhaps she will expand on this during the debate-is the suggestion that the Government are looking to work with international partners to remove gender markers from passports entirely. That proposal could be subject to a huge debate, and I am not sure that it is something that we would want to happen-I think that Government Back Benchers agree. The approach would seem to be a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It would also confuse a lot of people, but even if it was an answer that could be agreed as a way forward, such international negotiations would take a long time, meaning that the proposal is a long-grass solution. We are looking to see a timetable for action and a commitment to action. I once again remind the hon. Lady that she is now a Minister. Whatever her previous record, words are easy. Action may be harder, but action from the Minister is what we are after today.

Lynne Featherstone: As Members know from my comments on a similar amendment in Committee, I very much support initiatives that will advance the rights of transgendered people. In Committee I acknowledged the role of the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) in providing a measure in the Identity Cards Act which enabled a transgender person to be issued with two identity cards, one in the gender of birth and another in the gender of their choice.
	As hon. Members know, only one of those cards is available for use for travel in Europe. The second card issued in the second identity is available only for use in the UK for identification purposes. The person was required to choose which identity applied to which card at the time of application.
	The hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) described to us in detail some of the complex and difficult issues faced by transgender people-I should say people with gender identity issues, because they can be anywhere on the spectrum. It is not simply a case of being one gender or the other. As the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch said, the transgendered community can at times be marginalised, difficult to communicate with and difficult to gather together. Her Government's approach to transgendered people and identity cards did not, however, extend to passports, which it could have done. There was ample opportunity both before and since the identity cards legislation was passed in 2006 for the previous Government to apply the same provisions to passports, but they chose not to do so. There are good reasons for that.
	In speaking to the amendment, Opposition Members did not explain why passports did not benefit from the same provisions. I intend to set out briefly some of the issues involved and what we will be doing to seek a consolidated solution on identity and for transgendered people. I will deal in due course with the points raised by the hon. Ladies.
	Current passport policy enables a passport to be issued in a person's acquired gender without a gender recognition certificate, on production of medical evidence indicating that they experience gender dysphoria, or a report to some such effect. A passport in the acquired gender can be a key facilitator in gaining evidence to put before the gender recognition panel to show that a person is living their life in the acquired gender, thus allowing them to get the certificate.
	The passport is, of course, an international travel document. It is a good argument that one can get two passports if there is a difficulty with the stamp of a particular country, but there are identity issues associated with passports that are more complex than the same physical image and the same or a similar name appearing. A passport is issued on the basis of nationality and citizenship. It is a secure document which meets strict international standards and enjoys a high international reputation. The standards are agreed and set by the International Civil Aviation Organisation.
	We are not aware of any member state that issues two passports on the basis of transgender, and there are a number of reasons why we do not currently envisage the issuing of two passports-I made some inquiries about that possibility-to the same person but in different identities and with different facial images. There are fairly obvious security and immigration control issues arising from a person travelling to a country in one identity and perhaps leaving in another identity. There is also the personal situation for a transgendered person.
	I do not know whether hon. Members are aware that following the Committee sitting, I wrote about it on my blog. It was clear- [Interruption.] That is often a good way of communicating with the transgendered community.

Meg Hillier: I am amazed that the Minister tells us that she wrote on her blog about the issue, as though that is formal Government process. I have asked her repeatedly what formal Government consultation took place and her answer is her personal blog. Is this the way that the Government intend to continue?

Lynne Featherstone: The hon. Lady is pushing it. That was not an answer to the formal question. I mentioned my blog to illustrate the point that security issues in relation to travel are not the only consideration. There is also the personal situation of a transgendered person. The responses to that blog post indicated, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) identified in Committee, that-

Catherine McKinnell: Will the Minister give way?

Lynne Featherstone: No, I will not give way at the moment. I will finish the point I am making. The responses to the blog indicated that transgender people felt that would make them stand out-it would out them.

Stephen McCabe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the contents of the hon. Lady's blog are germane to the debate, is it not a requirement that the House should have access to it?

Lindsay Hoyle: Unfortunately, the blog is not a document, so that is not the case.

Lynne Featherstone: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will answer the formal question from the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch about consultation. The scrapping of ID cards formed part of the manifesto for the 2010 general election for both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. The policy received considerable media coverage and our opposition to ID cards has been in the public domain from the outset. The coalition agreement clearly sets out our aim to scrap ID cards and to destroy the national identity register. Therefore, although a formal consultation was not undertaken, we have been open and transparent in what we intended to do and what we are doing.
	It is clear from the messages-Opposition Members may think a website is not a formal place-from the community that transgendered people do not welcome the state emphasising their individual circumstances. That is why we will be engaging with the transgendered community and others to determine what they consider is the best approach and how we can best achieve a suitable outcome to the issue raised by Opposition Members, which I agree is extremely important-how to deal with the state of not quite being one gender or the other, or in process between the two.

Bridget Phillipson: So what the Minister is telling us is that the Government did not carry out an equality impact assessment, and that the substitute for that is correspondence with individuals on her blog. That takes the place of an impact assessment, which is a legal requirement.

Lynne Featherstone: No, that is not exactly what I said. The impact assessment for the Bill was published on 4 June 2010 and is available on the website of the Identity and Passport Service. The impact assessment indicates that the policy of scrapping ID cards does not have an impact on statutory equality duties.
	As the Minister for Immigration indicated in his letter of 19 July to the Chairs of the Committee considering the Bill, the ID card is just one form of identity and although the policy in respect of issuing two cards to a transgendered person may be considered as innovative, scrapping ID cards would not impact on their ability to access services or to travel in their chosen gender. It ill behoves the Opposition to make light of the transgender community communicating through whichever means it wishes.
	We need to be careful that in seeking to extend the rights of the transgendered person when travelling, we do not create the potential for additional difficulties. That is why we intend to work with the transgendered community and others on determining what they consider is the best approach and, in conjunction with the Government Equalities Office, consider how we can move this important issue forward. It is important that we listen to those who are most affected. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge mentioned in Committee, a number of his constituents who would be affected and with whom he has had discussions do not favour the approach suggested by the amendment.
	At the same time, through the International Civil Aviation Organisation, we will discuss with our international partners the issue of gender recognition in passports. It is possible for a passport to be issued with an X instead of an M for male and F for female. However, we anticipate that the use of an X may raise more questions than answers. Instead, we will consider other options, including whether it might be possible to remove gender identifiers from passports, and look at any potential consequential security implications of this. We aim to consult groups in the UK this autumn and with the ICAO and others over the coming months.

Meg Hillier: I am puzzled that that proposal has come out of leftfield one might say-but perhaps with this coalition, out of rightfield-as a solution. It seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and it is a very big proposal to suggest that "male" and "female" be removed from a document that 80% of the British public use.
	To return to an earlier point, however, the Minister's ego is quite extraordinary. Her blog and no official consultation seem to be her answer to things, and I worry about the civil service. There are some excellent civil servants in her Department, as I well know, and they have to act on the basis of two political manifestos and a personal, political blog. Within government, there are statutory and other requirements for consultation, but the Minister has come to the Dispatch Box to explain that this Government do not take them seriously. They prefer party political routes, with all their imperfections, to what one might reasonably expect, which are proper Government routes.

Lynne Featherstone: As I have already explained to the hon. Lady, we are taking formal Government routes, too. Indeed, we will proceed with more formal routes and properly consult a wide range of transgender groups.
	The new clause is impractical and fails to recognise its impact on transgendered people. It asks that ID cards that have been issued to transgendered people remain valid until expiry or until another system is in place, but in practice that would mean that only transgendered people would have ID cards. Apart from the huge cost of maintaining the ID infrastructure, whenever that card were used the gender background of the cardholder would be immediately identifiable. Rather than enabling transgendered people to get on with their lives without interference, the proposal would bring them unnecessary and potentially harming attention and focus, and the same problems would arise if transgendered people were issued with a bespoke identification document other than a passport.
	This Government are producing the first action plan on transgender equality ever produced by an Administration. Perhaps Opposition Members did not realise the unintended consequences of their new clause, but I recommend that it be withdrawn.

Julie Hilling: I am a new Member, and this is the first time that I have been through this process. However, a Bill has been introduced to get rid of previously enacted legislation that served some members of our community well-a small proportion, but it served them well-and I am deeply shocked that, without any formal consultation or proper discussion with that community, we are now saying that we will get rid of it.

Lynne Featherstone: We have agreed that it is an important issue and I understand that there was only one case of dual issuing-of issuing two identity cards.

Julie Hilling: I was not a Minister and cannot answer that point, but I thought that we were supposed to have impact assessments before we made legislation. The Government are making legislation without them, and I am deeply shocked.
	I wish that I were reassured, but I am not sure that I am. I listened to what the Minister said about the need to go forward on the issue and the transgender community being consulted on the solution. I hope that she will undertake that consultation.
	Believe me, I recognise that the situation is difficult to resolve. I understand the difficulty of saying, "Let's not have a gender in the passport," because that would not be a solution; and I understand the difficulty of issuing people two passports. The House should not misunderstand me; I understand that difficulty. However, it is so important for that small group of people that we do not allow our citizens to be humiliated as they go through passport control or people to lose their careers because of the difficulties that they face. On the basis of the Government's guarantees that they will take the issue forward, take it seriously and work on it, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
	 Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2
	 — 
	Passport fees for holders of ID cards

(1) This section applies to a person ("P") who-
	(a) held a valid ID card on the day on which this Act was passed, and
	(b) paid a fee for the card.
	(2) On the first occasion after the passing of this Act on which P applies for a passport, the fee charged for the passport shall be reduced by £30.'.- (Meg Hillier.)
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Meg Hillier: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 4- Transfer of information from National Identity Register to Identity and Passport Service
	'The Secretary of State must ensure that any information recorded in the National Identity Register which-
	(a) relates to a person ("P") who has indicated that P wishes to retain P's identity card until its expiry date, and
	(b) is relevant to an application by P for a passport,
	is transferred to the Identity and Passport Service.'.
	Amendment 5, page 1, line 16, in clause 2, leave out from 'day' to end of line 10 on page 3 and insert
	'will remain valid until their expiry date.'.
	Amendment 6, page 2, line 13, leave out clause 3.
	Amendment 8, page 2, line 16, in clause 3, at end insert-
	'(2) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of four months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, present to Parliament a report identifying the information destroyed in accordance with subsection (1).'.

Meg Hillier: I shall not rehearse all the arguments that were made in Committee, but the Opposition are concerned about the mean-spirited nature of the Bill. Some 14,000 people took up ID cards, most of which were paid for, and those individuals thought that the cards would be valid for 10 years. It was a simple transaction not just with a commercial body, but with Her Majesty's Government and, indeed, the Identity and Passport Service, one of the most trusted public bodies in this country, as research shows. Yet if the Bill goes the way the Government wish and, similarly, through the Lords, one month after Royal Assent those individuals will lose the ability to use the card that they had thought would be valid for 10 years. We have tabled some new proposals and given the Government a choice about how to deal with the matter. There is still an opportunity for the Minister for Immigration to recognise that, in his haste to get rid of identity cards, which for him is a big ideological issue, he does not need also to be unfair to those who in good faith paid their £30.
	The new clause and amendments detail two proposals. There is no money resolution attached to the Bill, so we cannot press for a refund. However, we propose that the fee that people paid be added as a credit to the passport database. The data-matching would be relatively straightforward, given that everybody who holds an identity card, including myself, has, or has recently had, a passport. Of course, there are data protection rules, and we would have to gain permission from those individuals, but I would happily give permission for my data to be transferred.
	In the process, we would lose the fingerprint, because it cannot be stored- [ Interruption. ] I am glad to see that the Minister is listening. It cannot be stored on the passport database- [ Interruption. ] I am being ironic: the Minister will, I hope, be listening in a moment. It cannot be stored, because the Government, in their desire to get rid of it so quickly- [ Interruption. ] In their reckless desire to get rid of it quickly, I repeat for the Minister, the Government do not plan to introduce passports with fingerprints. However, that credit would give some comfort to those who paid £30, and it would represent basic fairness.
	The Government make great play of fairness; they often point to their coalition agreement, which makes much of it; and, as we seem to be quoting manifestos today, each individual party spoke about fairness in its manifesto, so we ask that the proposal be considered. It would be a relatively straightforward transaction, and with another amendment we will probe the Minister on a further issue. If the Government are planning to destroy the data, they will have to handle the information and do something with it, so they might as well pass it over to the passport database.

Guy Opperman: Does the hon. Lady expect the repayment to be made to those persons who received that particular facility for free?

Meg Hillier: If the hon. Gentleman had had the courtesy to listen, he would have heard me deal with that point at the beginning of my comments.
	We also suggest an alternative, so the Government have a choice. The Minister has two options in order to be fair to those members of the British public who bought a card in good faith. The alternative is to allow cards to continue for 10 years and, again, with the permission of the individual cardholder, for data to be migrated to the passport database, which is not a terribly difficult transaction, so that ID cards can continue as passports. We recognise that that is not a perfect solution, because with few cards already out there and, given all the points that we rehearsed in Committee about someone's ability to recognise the document, there might still be issues. However, that would represent a choice for the individual who had paid their £30 to have the card.

Aidan Burley: We learned in Committee that of the 14,670 ID cards that were issued, almost 3,000 were given free of charge, so only 11,000 cards were paid for. Are the Opposition, in the second of their two options, suggesting that we maintain the card infrastructure for the next 10 years just for those 11,000 people, at a cost of £50 million to £60 million for 16 people per constituency?

Meg Hillier: That is not what we are suggesting, as the hon. Gentleman would see if he read the new clause. As I said, we are suggesting that the information be migrated to the passport database.
	We recognise that this is a rare area of unity for both Government parties, which is perhaps why it is being rushed through. The Government clearly want to get rid of the national identity register. However, it would not be difficult to migrate data to the passport database, especially given that everybody who currently holds a card has recently held, or currently holds, a passport. Of the 11,000 people affected, many may choose not to take up migration of the card. If there were to be the option of a credit on their passport database, some may not choose to take that up either. However, it would give them the option. I believe that it can be done relatively cheaply, and that it is fair.
	This is being done with the ideologically driven haste of the Minister. We have debated this previously and I know that he is passionate about getting rid of ID cards, but basic fairness is involved. Frankly, those who bought in good faith from the trusted Identity and Passport Service have been diddled by this Government. If the Minister gets up and talks about what his manifesto said, we will be driven to despair. We discussed this in Committee. When somebody buys a passport or an identity card, or has any other transaction with Government, they will not necessarily take into account something that has been said in a political manifesto. Government has some degree of continuity and when an individual has bought something in good faith, there needs to be some recompense for them.
	We recognise, reluctantly, that both parties in this Government had a mandate to get rid of identity cards; as I said, it is one area of unanimity within the coalition. Therefore, whatever our position on that general issue, we will not press the matter to a vote. However, the issue of compensation is very important, and we will seek to divide the House on the new clause unless the Minister can give us some reassurances.

Pete Wishart: I rise vigorously to oppose the new clause.
	We have to be absolutely and abundantly clear about the fact that identity cards are exclusively and solely a new Labour creation. Every single other party in this House made it absolutely clear that we would have nothing whatsoever to do with them and that if we had even the remotest opportunity to get rid of these useless and intrusive lumps of plastic, we would do so immediately. We actively encouraged people not to take out ID cards. For those who did so, under new Labour encouragement, that was their free and fair choice: tough luck to them. We are now enacting exactly what we told them. The new coalition Government are absolutely right to try to get rid of ID cards. They said they would do it in 100 days. I am disappointed that it will take a little bit longer than that, but thank goodness we are getting rid of this hated, obtrusive and ridiculous scheme.
	We refer to these as ID cards, but let us give them their proper name. They are not ID cards, but NLID cards-new Labour identity cards. They are a monumental folly that symbolises new Labour's attempt to create the anti-civil libertarian state, and thank goodness they did not get away with it. Instead of droning on about compensating the poor mugs they encouraged to take out ID cards, why do not Labour Members get on board and join us in celebrating the removal of these things? Nobody wants them.

Catherine McKinnell: I appreciate the very strong feelings that the hon. Gentleman is conveying, but I want to draw out his views not on whether ID cards should be abolished but on whether individuals who paid for them honestly and in good faith should be recompensed, as suggested in the new clause.

Pete Wishart: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's intervention. We told people who were thinking about taking out an ID card, "Don't do it-we're going to abolish this scheme." In fact, if someone took out an ID card in Scotland, they would not require compensation but having their head looked at. The Scottish Government made it clear that people would not be able to use an ID card to access public services in Scotland. We did everything we could as a Government and as a party to discourage people in Scotland from taking out ID cards-and thank goodness they listened to us. I think that perhaps one in 10 of the people involved took out an ID card in Scotland. Anyone who did so would have to be the biggest new Labour cheerleader waving in and celebrating the arrival of the anti-civil libertarian state in Scotland. They would need to have had "Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath's Finest" tattooed on their chest to have taken out an ID card in Scotland: that is how ridiculous a proposition it would have been.

Robert Halfon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way in the course of such an impassioned speech. Does he agree that not all Labour Members take the same view? In fact, the Labour party leadership candidate, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), has said that ID cards were a great mistake and that the party should show some humility and admit that it got it wrong.

Pete Wishart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because I have that quote from the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), who said:
	"As someone who is liberal on social issues and civil liberties, I accept that in government we were too draconian on aspects of our civil liberties...We have to have to be able to say we won't go back to ID cards."
	Come on, the rest of you-catch up! He might be your leader, because according to the opinion polls, he is ahead. You are way behind current thinking on this. Labour had a good record on civil liberties until new Labour came along-please get back in touch with your civil libertarian roots.

Meg Hillier: I am interested to hear the Scottish National party's position. In fact, people could not easily apply for ID cards in Scotland, and that is why very few did so. They were not formally launched there at the point at which the Government changed, but they would have been coming and I am sure that there are many people in Scotland who would have liked to have had one.
	Leaving that aside, it would be interesting to know what the SNP's position is on fingerprints in passports, which is something that Members from many parties in this House, both Government and Opposition, have indicated is very important, and something that my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North has not ruled out.

Pete Wishart: If you will allow me, Mr Deputy Speaker, because we are straying somewhat from the terms of the debate, I would say to the hon. Lady that I am very pleased that the coalition Government are picking up the Scottish example as regards databases. They have seen the good sense of the SNP Government in their approach to these issues, and I congratulate them on following and copying their model.
	Given that it was Labour Members alone and exclusively who encouraged people to take out ID cards, why are they asking the taxpayer to help with compensation? It should be the Labour party that compensates the poor souls who took them out. It has all these trade union funds-what is it going to do with them? If you want compensation to be paid to these people, pay it yourself.
	I have one bit of comfort for all those who have taken out ID cards in the course of the past year: they are becoming a collector's item. This is really intriguing and interesting. Forget about compensation-all they need to do is get one of the great Labour champions of the anti-civil libertarian state to sign their card. If anyone watching this has an ID card, they should get Mr Clarke, Mr Reid or Jacqui Smith to sign it, and that will increase its collectability. They might get more than the £30 that they want the Government to pay them back. Here is a good idea: they should get the absolute champion of ID cards, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), to sign it; they would probably turn a profit given the collectability that that would have in the future. The collectability of ID cards makes them almost like little bits of the Berlin wall, appropriately, and that is how they are likely to remain.
	I make a plea to the Labour party: get on board with this. Get in touch with your civil libertarian roots, find a new agenda, listen to what is happening in your leadership contest, and forget about droning on about compensation and trying to get this scheme to go on. It is done, finished-move on. I am with the Government on this one. We should reject this new clause, make sure that nobody gets compensation, and end the scheme tomorrow if we can.

Robert Buckland: It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who, with Celtic chutzpah, put the damning case against identity cards and the national identity register extremely well and with great wit and humour. I pay tribute to him.
	I am sure that the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) will forgive me for saying that the fortitude with which she moved the new clause characterised her approach throughout the long march of ID cards up to the top of the hill and now, happily, down again. She reminds me of Queen Victoria during the Boer war. When it was put to her in the early stages that there was a possibility of defeat, she memorably said, "I do not accept the possibility of defeat. It does not exist." The attitude of the hon. Lady and the former Government to ID cards is encapsulated in that memorable quotation. There has been a state of denial and an almost fanatical refusal of the reality of how the debate on ID cards has shifted since the early days, when I concede opinion polls were somewhat against those who opposed the cards.
	There is no doubt that there has been a sea change in public opinion in recent years, encouraged not only by parties in the House but by a genuine campaign across the country against the menace of ID cards and the national identity register. Yet the former Government did not listen to that campaign or to members of my party, the Liberal Democrats or the nationalist parties. There was a grand coalition against the proposals, but still they pressed ahead. Worse than that, to use another military metaphor, they laid booby trap after booby trap to make it as difficult as possible for people to withdraw from the scheme. That is where the new clause fails the test that we should set it.
	Although I appreciate the spirit behind the proposal, there is no doubt that members of the public who chose to buy an identity card would, by definition, have been aware of the raging debate about that contentious issue. I have to say to them, caveat emptor-let the buyer beware. When buying the card, they knew that it was my party's stated intention to take immediate steps to end the scheme, and that other parties were saying exactly the same thing. The message was loud and clear.
	The situation is rather like the one 13 years ago, when the Labour Government came to office. They made their position clear about certain policies, for example promising an end to tax credits for people on private health schemes. We are not here to debate that now, but it is a parallel point. Labour was elected to office overwhelmingly and carried out its policy, as it was entitled to do. The electorate were given a clear message, and the late Government did not renege upon their promise. They pressed ahead based upon the mandate that they had received. Although we can debate the merits of that decision, it was their prerogative. Now, 13 years later, we are in a similar position. We have a Government consisting of two parties that made their position crystal clear before the election, yet if we accept the amendment, we will be applying a different rule.
	Politics is a tough occupation-I am sure we all have direct experience of that. We win some, we lose some. Labour comprehensively lost the argument on identity cards and the national register, and I submit that in those circumstances, the best thing for it to do is accept defeat gracefully and not press the new clause.

Denis MacShane: The hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) was eloquent and I agree with much of what he said, above all about the centrality of the manifesto on which a party is elected. The Conservative party was elected on a very clear manifesto against the alternative vote, and of course Conservative Members are now marching into the Lobby to vote for a referendum on it. However, he will have to learn a lesson about politics that I have had to learn for much of my life, which is the pleasure of swallowing one's previous pledges and standing on one's head. On AV, which is far more important than this minor Bill, the Conservative party is doing both. The nation will duly take note.
	The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) was wondrous in his eloquence. His speech was clearly a bid to join the coalition, and I would have thought that he should get a ministerial job. The Government are short of Scottish talent. Actually, they are short of talent, and he is both Scottish and talented. He should certainly be sitting on the Treasury Bench. He represents the nationalistic passions of Scotland, the country where I was born and where an awful lot of my family still live.
	I wish that new Labour had been the inspiration for ID cards, but it was not. The Netherlands, Germany, Spain and France all have them. They are a European idea, but in today's evolving political landscape it is always important to hear the nationalist rant against European practice. That is another reason why the hon. Gentleman may find himself much happier sitting on the Government Benches.
	I turn to the new clause itself, which is not about the origins and use of ID cards, or about whether they were in the manifesto that the British people supported, just as they handsomely supported the party opposed to AV and defeated the one in favour of it. It is simply about whether the state can confiscate money. The hon. Gentleman is wrong; it was not taxpayers' money that paid for my ID card but a £30 cheque or credit card payment from my miserable pre-Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority salary. I am not sure whether it is a claimable expense. As euro-waffler-in-chief, I do an awful lot of travel in Europe, but I am not sure whether I could put in a claim for an ID card.

Damian Green: Don't even think about it.

Denis MacShane: The Minister is quite right. However, it was my money that paid for my ID card, and the state has no right to confiscate my money. If it took a house or land from me by compulsory purchase, it would have to pay the due sum.

Aidan Burley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his decision to buy an ID card, whether or not he intended to claim the money back, was entirely a free choice? He had a choice whether to buy one, and he chose to do so. These are the consequences.

Denis MacShane: I am terribly sorry, but I obtained my ID card and paid my £30. The new Government are rightly seeking to confiscate it, but they owe me modest compensation for doing so. I would never be allowed, under your stern tutelage, Mr Deputy Speaker, to accuse the Ministers of misleading the House or not being straight with us, but may I say that they are being a right pair of tea leaves at the moment? They are going to steal my money and not hand it back.  [Interruption.] I mean that they are fond of tea and coffee. A very sound principle of British law is that if the state changes regulations and confiscates an individual's property that was bought in good faith, forms of compensation are normally paid.
	That is not just my view but that of a distinguished Conservative adviser, Lord Levene, who I believe the Prime Minister has hired to advise him on reducing defence expenditure, or perhaps more accurately to achieve smarter procurement in defence, which is his speciality. He wrote a very cross letter to  The Times, about which we later had a very nice telephone conversation, in which he said that it was quite preposterous that having bought his identity card in good faith, he should now have it confiscated without any compensation. I bow to Lord Levene as a banker, a man of affairs, a business leader and a distinguished Government adviser, and shelter behind his outrage. Frankly, it does not matter if we are talking about one person or 14 million people. I put it to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire that the Government could do themselves no end of good by accepting the new clause, because 14,000 or 15,000 people, in good faith, took out ID cards- [ Interruption. ] Sorry, 11,000 people paid money for cards and others got them free. They have used the cards for three months, so compensation could be made pro rata. It would do the Government no harm-they have sent letters to Lord Levene and me, but they will be sending more-to put a little cheque in the post for those people.

Damian Green: The right hon. Gentleman was in danger of coming close to a serious point, and I thought it deserved to be dealt with. I am sure he has read the Bill and the Identity Cards Act 2006 carefully, so he will be aware that the Government of whom he was such a distinguished and eloquent supporter for so many years wrote the legislation so that the ID card, which he says is to be confiscated, is not his property. The ID card has always been the property of the state, so he cannot run the argument that his property will be confiscated.

Denis MacShane: I am grateful for that hair-splitting point. My passport remains the property of the state, but the plain fact is that I and 11,000 others paid £30. That is not a lot of money, but it was paid in good faith. New clause 2, gently and in a friendly way-there will be other opportunities to make similar points-says that there should be polite compensation. That is a long-established principle of British democratic practice. We are talking peanuts, so the Government would do themselves no harm at all if they erred gently on the side of generosity.

Guy Opperman: I shall not detain the House long, but the Bill has rightly been described as a long march. The previous Government's policy began years ago as a proposal for a compulsory scheme, forcing ID cards on individuals. As a result, there was tremendous opposition. It is surely a rare day when the Conservative and Liberal coalition is supported by Justice and other individuals and organisations that promote civil liberties.
	The Government, having decided that the scheme would be compulsory, indicated in the previous Parliament that the scheme would be voluntary. I confess that my vast research was not into answering the question whether schemes in other parts of Europe are compulsory rather than voluntary, which the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) raised. However, the UK scheme was voluntary and people signed up it.
	The 2006 Act wound its way tortuously through the House, slowly but surely, faltering at every step, like some relic of yesteryear, as the previous Government attempted to demonstrate tremendous moral fibre in some shape or form. They were in the position of having to carry the measure, and the scheme eventually became voluntary. As soon as the scheme became voluntary, the argument in favour of repayment fell away. People were not obliged to sign up for an ID card, and could instead rely on their passports, driving licences or alternative documentation.
	The reality is that people voluntarily signed up to pay for an ID card. They were not forced to sign up, so the Government's approach must be dramatically different. The decision to sign up is for the individual, and the legislation states that if they do not want to sign up, they do not have to do so. It is not incumbent on the state, at this or at any other stage, to pay compensation.

Denis MacShane: Let me ask the hon. Gentleman a question so I can get this clear: if he voluntarily buys a house and the council comes along and takes it off him, is he saying that the council does not have to pay compensation?

Guy Opperman: A variety of things could happen in that situation, not least suing the council. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that various people who gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee indicated that they might contemplate suing the Government. People could sue the council if they were put in that position.

Pete Wishart: That is not so much the key point as the context of such decisions. When lots of people are saying, "Do not buy this because we are going scrap it," people are making an informed decision. If they choose to buy voluntarily an ID card, that is surely up to them.

Guy Opperman: rose-

Michael Ellis: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Guy Opperman: Of course.

Michael Ellis: To continue the example of the house sale, an individual buying a house despite knowing that there is something wrong with it, such as subsidence, is the same as the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) in respect of his ID card.

Guy Opperman: The position has been explained and I am sure that it is fully comprehended. We should not detain ourselves on the £30 any further in the House. Liberty and Justice support our point of view.

Meg Hillier: Liberty is also in favour of removing ID cards for foreign nationals, or biometric identity documents, or whatever people wish to call them. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with Liberty? Is he aware that surveys revealed that the Identity and Passport Service is one of the most trusted public bodies in the country? That trust is being breached by the Government's decision. All we are saying to the Government is, "Be fair to those who bought an ID card." Frankly, the idea that everybody read all the manifestos, as some hon. Members are saying, rather overrates their importance, and suggests that hon. Members are not in touch with the many people who do not follow politics and daily read manifestos .

Guy Opperman: rose-

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the debate is quite tight and that he should speak to the new clause? He should not draw Members into other areas.

Guy Opperman: I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I have in any way drawn Members into other areas.
	The short answer to the hon. Lady is to ask her this question: if the ID cards satisfaction survey showed that they were so popular, why did so few people sign up? Fewer than 15,000 signed up, and several thousand did not have to pay.

Damian Green: The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) inadvertently misled the House by saying that Liberty is against biometric residence permits. I have Liberty's briefing for today's debate. It states that-

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I do not think that the permits are part of the debate, and we are being drawn into other areas. I am sure that Mr Opperman would like to continue his speech.

Guy Opperman: I do not intend to go any further on that point. My final point is that we should not sign up to proposed new clause 2.

Stephen McCabe: I, too, do not want to take too long on new clause 2 and in speaking to amendment 8. I enjoyed the contribution of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). I am going to try to find out who the 10 people in Scotland who want to join his fan club are, and I will do anything I can to put them in contact with him.
	I want to acknowledge that there is one area of agreement. The Lib Dem and Conservative parties both went into the election on a promise to abolish identity cards, and we cannot really find fault with that. Of course, the Lib Dems also promised thousands of extra policemen, and I do not know where that figures in the current arrangements. However, if people are going to pray in aid that their manifesto commitment is the great justification, we need a total explanation. As far the Lib Dems are concerned, their justifications amount to nothing.
	This is a relatively small issue, and we could go too far on it, but the people who bought ID cards did so in good faith-

Denis MacShane: It is a narrow point, but it is an important point. Since 1945, there have been many elections-although perhaps not recently-in which a party has said that if elected it would nationalise a private industry. The owners of the shares in that industry-even if the shares amount to £20 and were bought on the day of the election-always received due compensation. We do not confiscate without some compensation. That is a very important point of British democracy.

Stephen McCabe: There is a principle here, and that is my point. People bought these cards in good faith. It is all very well for other hon. Members to say that it was clear that if the election results went a certain way they would be abolished, but everyone-including the hon. Members for Hexham (Guy Opperman), for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) and indeed for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart)-must remember that no one won the last election. The Conservatives did not convince the electorate of the merits of their manifesto, nor did the coalition partners. That is why we have a coalition. The election result was not clear cut and no single party succeeded in convincing the electorate that they had a right to govern by themselves. In that context, it would be reasonable to show a bit of humility in the proposals the Government make.
	I have no objection to the Government choosing to abolish ID cards, but I do object to them seeking to penalise and punish those who bought cards in good faith. The electorate will remember all these grand speeches saying that those people do not count for anything and the derogatory remarks-although I am sure that they were made in jest-of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire. Hon. Members should recognise that those people acted in good faith and it is not appropriate to penalise them.
	We do not want to make a massive deal of this, but the Minister has had quite a lot of time to think about it. We are talking about a relatively modest amount of money, but the precedent it would set is very important. If the precedent is set that people will be punished if, after having acted in good faith by doing something that the Government of the day encouraged, it will cause paralysis in many other areas.

Aidan Burley: The hon. Gentleman said that this proposal would cost a relatively modest amount, but does he have any idea how much it would be? The current cost of maintaining the present system, as we know from Committee, would be £50 million to £60 million over 10 years. Other hon. Members have suggested migrating the data to the Passport Service, but I have no idea what that alternative proposal would cost. Does the hon. Gentleman know what the cost of maintaining the system for 11,000 people would be?

Stephen McCabe: Fortunately, I do not suffer from the voodoo economics of Conservative Members, so I do not have a clue where the hon. Gentleman gets the figure of £50 million or £60 million. We are saying that there should be a £30 discount when the person who currently holds a card next applies for a passport. Under whichever education system hon. Members operate, they should be able to work the figure out for themselves.
	I like and respect the Minister and I trust what he says, but clause 3 states that the information on the national identity register will be destroyed. It is fair to say that when this was discussed in Committee his knowledge of the technical detail of the register was almost as good as mine, and neither of us is likely to get a job with Bill Gates any time soon. We know from the information that was presented to the Committee that there is some doubt in Government and in Government organisations about what is meant by the national identity register. We cannot pass legislation in good faith and then discover that it cannot be implemented because the Minister has been asked to do something that he is not technically capable of doing.
	I make this point for two reasons. First, since the election, my colleagues and I have listened to the grandstanding from the Government Benches about their civil libertarian credentials. That will work in the early months of government, when it is easy to run around saying that they are against speed cameras or DNA testing, but it will not work when they face constituents who have suffered and want to know why the Government are not on their side- [ Interruption. ] If the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire wants to come to the defence of his new-found friends again, I will give way.

Pete Wishart: I just wanted to give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to say whether he is in line with the thinking of the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), who has said that the previous Government were too draconian on civil liberties. Is that an admission that the hon. Gentleman recognises?

Stephen McCabe: Let me be blunt. I may find myself loyally serving my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband)-who knows-but I am not against ID cards. Nor would I say that the previous Government, in the circumstances with which we had to deal, were draconian. We took the difficult decisions that were necessary, and there will come a time when Ministers in this Government have to come to the House to tell us what they are having to do to protect the public because of a deterioration in our security situation. It is easy to grandstand now, but tomorrow always comes-and what is said now may come back to haunt you.
	It is all very well painting a bleak picture of the previous Government, but can the Minister tell us today how the information contained on the national identity register will be destroyed? He will know that in the evidence given to the Committee the chief executive of the UK Border Agency was not entirely clear what the national identity register was. Some people thought that it was to do with facial geometry, some thought it was not. Some people thought that it was to do with a Sagem algorithm, whatever that is, and others thought that it was to do with the Cogent algorithm. One person thought that it was "co-ordinated" and another said that it is not a box with everyone's name in it-I think we know that much.
	I do not want to push the new clause to a vote, but is the Minister able to tell us today how he will comply with the requirements of clause 3? If not, will he agree to come back to the Chamber and report what has happened? The last thing that I want to do is be back here at some point in the future accusing Ministers of failing to comply with their own legislation.

Nigel Mills: It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe). I have done it so often he might want a restraining order at some stage.
	I understand the argument for why the people who foolishly bought an ID card should get some compensation- [Interruption.] I am not saying I support that argument, but I can see its logic. However, I struggle to see the logic behind the arguments for new clauses 2 and 4, one of which would, if I am right, see the existing cards be valid for nearly another 10 years. The other would provide for a discount, at some point during those 10 years, if someone applied for a new passport. I struggle to see, however, how having ID cards that are still valid in nine years and nine months would give those holding them the advantages they sought when they paid for them. Where would those ID cards be accepted as a proven form of identity? What is the risk that people could forge them? Would people struggle to tell the difference, if they did? Would people be able to travel around the EU using an ID card instead of a passport? I struggle to see how that would happen, and it would open up the door to a manner of identity fraud different from what we already have, so I cannot vote to keep them in place for the next 10 years.
	The idea of credit against a passport is a better one, but again we would have the problem of having to keep the data for all that period. We would also have the problem of how to process that data. I presume that the easiest way would be that, when a person applied for a passport, they would have to send in their ID card to prove that they actually had one in the first place. Again, however, how would we deal with people who had changed their names, lost their ID card or found it useless for eight years until their passport renewal came round and had to dig it out from the bottom of a draw somewhere? There would also be the risk that people might try to create fraudulent cards, meaning that someone would have to go back to the original list of people with ID cards for proof. And how would we handle the fact that not everyone actually had paid for their card? I accept that the proposal provides for that, but it means that someone would need a record of who had paid for their card and who had got theirs free.
	With respect, therefore, I cannot see how we can vote for either of the two solutions. There is no way I can vote for either. Given some of the concerns raised by Opposition Members about the legal issues involved in scrapping ID cards without compensation, I would be grateful if the Minister could repeat the assurance he gave us in Committee that the Government had received solid legal advice that it is legal and will not be overturned at huge cost to the taxpayer resulting from the court proceedings subsequent to this process.

Julie Hilling: Hon. Members on both sides have been extremely rude to constituents of mine who have written to me about how they bought an ID card in good faith. I assume that a lot of Members in the Chamber today were not part of the pilot programme in which constituents were able to buy ID cards. Had they been, perhaps they would also be speaking up on behalf of those constituents who bought ID cards but will not now get a refund. Those who have written to me are mainly pensioners and on a low income. They decided that they were only going to be travelling as far as Europe and that therefore an ID card was a good value alternative to paying the full amount for a full passport. These people are taxpayers.

Michael Ellis: May I ask how many of her constituents wrote to her about this?

Stephen McCabe: Every vote counts!

Julie Hilling: Especially in a marginal.
	I have received letters from about a dozen people in my constituency, and as I say, they are on low incomes and are taxpayers. Each of them entered into a contract with their Government saying, "I will purchase an ID card, and for that I will have the benefit of travel within Europe and other benefits, such as proof of identity, for 10 years." It is not unreasonable for those constituents to expect either to get their money back or to receive credit for it.

Nigel Mills: Will the hon. Lady confirm my understanding that those constituents will already have had a passport that they can use to travel to the same places?

Julie Hilling: I will happily answer that question. The only people who prior to the election could get an ID card were those whose passport had recently expired. They were mainly elderly people who made a decision not to travel further than Europe, and they were mainly people who could not afford, or found it difficult to afford, the full cost of a passport.
	Several Members have talked about how the message was loud and clear that the ID cards would disappear. My constituents are not fortune-tellers and could not say what the outcome of the election would be. In actual fact, they made their views clear by returning a Labour MP, so it is insulting to them to say that they should have expected the ID cards to disappear.

Stewart Jackson: In all fairness, the hon. Lady should concede that it was almost unprecedented in all the polices taken through by the Labour Government for a break clause to be flagged up by the then shadow Home Secretary and others. That sent a very strong signal to commercial organisations that the current Government would not continue with the ID cards programme. I am not saying that all her constituents will be reading the trade press, or even the quality press, but it was clear that both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party had made manifesto commitments to abolish ID cards.

Julie Hilling: My constituents could not have foreseen at that point that there would be a Con-Dem coalition. How could they have known what would be in the coalition agreement, especially given that it does not bear much resemblance to the manifestos?

Catherine McKinnell: Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the constituents who have written to us and who we deal with, and who are concerned about not receiving any compensation, do not follow avidly the words of a shadow ministerial team? Largely, they are probably not interested in the pronunciations of a shadow ministerial team, but are busy trying to survive day to day on a state pension, to make ends meet, to get their shopping and to look after their grandchildren. They are not avidly following the intricacies of the position of the shadow ministerial team.

Julie Hilling: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, because I agree with her absolutely.
	If someone buys a service from the Government, whatever their colour, they would expect their Government to continue to provide that service, and if they did not continue to do so, they would expect to be compensated. That is the major point.

Louise Bagshawe: I thank the hon. Lady for being so generous in giving way. I put it to her that her constituents ought to be complaining to the Labour party, which was in Government at the time, because it was made clear to them that we would not be continuing with this scheme. The fault for the costs that her constituents have borne should rightly be laid with Labour Members and the Labour Front-Bench team. Is that not true?

Julie Hilling: The hon. Lady does not quite understand that my party, the loyal Opposition, does not have the power to make payments. If only we did. If only we had the power to say to those who bought identity cards, "We will reimburse this money."

Denis MacShane: Can we nail this extraordinary new constitutional doctrine that because a party thinks it is going to win an election, everything should come to a dead halt before the people have voted? I saw the shadow Home Secretary at the Great Eastern Tandoori restaurant in Pimlico the day after the election, except he was not to become the Home Secretary. Should he receive compensation? We really have to stop this nonsense. Power might have changed hands, but we should still accept responsibility and pay the compensation.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Members are getting carried away with interventions, and we ought to stick to the point. Mr MacShane should know better.

Julie Hilling: I remain absolutely convinced that my constituents deserve fair treatment. They deserve either to have the money refunded-sadly, this mean-spirited Bill does not allow that to happen-or for their identity cards to continue, although I accept that this might be difficult. The easiest thing would be to allow them £30 credit towards a passport.
	People have talked about alternative means of identification, but I wonder whether those hon. Members who are present know how much they cost. All those alternative means of identification cost more than the identity card. Those who are disabled-for instance, those with a visual disability or other conditions-cannot get a driving licence; and indeed, if someone was never going to drive, why would they apply for one? However, a driving licence is one of the few photographic means of identification that we have in this country. The identity card was therefore valuable a tool with which people could prove their identity, which is becoming increasingly important and difficult to do nowadays.
	Let me finish by saying that I believe that the Bill is mean-spirited. The Government should give £30 credit to those affected, and I very much hope that hon. Members will vote for that later.

Keith Vaz: I have known you long enough to know that when you frown in the way that you have, Mr Deputy Speaker, you wish and expect short speeches from hon. Members. I therefore intend to be brief.
	I came into the Chamber mindful of the Opposition amendment and with a view to supporting the proposal to pay compensation to those who have taken out voluntary cards. However, I have listened to what hon. Members have said, including the thoughtful speech by the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman). It is probably right that people should have been cautious in taking out a voluntary card, knowing that the policy was not carried in all parts of the House. However, it would have been better for the Government to pay the money back as a good-will gesture than for us to be fighting about £30 multiplied by 11,000 on the Floor of the House. I understand that the principle is important, and I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) that the 12 constituents and others who may have written to her are obviously deeply concerned. Perhaps £30 is not a lot to some people, but it is certainly a great deal to the kinds of constituents whom she mentioned.

Catherine McKinnell: Just to clarify whether £30 is a significant amount, in fact, we are not talking about £30; we are talking about the additional £50 that will be required to get another valid form of identification. An extra £50, making £80 in total, is a lot of money for some people, and particularly for pensioners, who have to save for some time to afford it.

Keith Vaz: I agree with my hon. Friend: it is a lot of money for some people, but it is not clear whether there is a huge point of principle, based as it is on the fact that people were clear that identity cards were an absolutely partisan policy on the part of the previous Government. Only my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South-

David Winnick: Walsall North-the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) is your sister.

Keith Vaz: I thank my hon. Friend for reminding me-I think I just about know the difference between my sister and my hon. Friend, who was so often the conscience of the Select Committee on Home Affairs when it considered the issue in the previous Parliament. We accepted that the previous Government had an absolute right to put through their legislation on ID cards. It was only my hon. Friend who reminded the Committee on so many occasions that he thought that the policy was wrong.

David Winnick: As for the previous Government, obviously there was controversy among Labour Members on the subject-it would have been odd if that were not so-but does my right hon. Friend not agree that the original idea for identity cards came from Michael Howard, when he was the Home Secretary in, of course, a Conservative Administration?

Keith Vaz: I cannot say for certain, but my hon. Friend is wiser and has been in this House for longer than me, so if he quotes Michael Howard from a few years ago, I accept what he says.

Jim Cunningham: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick): Michael Howard had a proposal for something called the smart card. He tried to get it through this House, but he could not do so.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Let me remind hon. Members that we are discussing new clause 2. These points are not relevant. I am sure that you will wish to return to the new clause, Mr Vaz.

Keith Vaz: Unfortunately I did not know about those points until they were made. Had I known that they would be raised, I would not have given way. However, as you say, Mr Deputy Speaker, this is not a debate about Lord Howard; it is a debate about new clause 2.
	Although I came into the Chamber wanting to support those on my Front Bench-and I still want to, because I have great respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who was a superb Minister, appearing many times before the Home Affairs Committee on identity issues, including the cost of identity cards and their implementation-I am probably minded to abstain if there is a vote.
	I understand that the Minister has written to- [ Interruption. ] Let me say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), for whom I have enormous respect and affection, that I do not think that what is proposed is the equivalent of the nationalisation of British Steel, with the Government moving in to take away somebody else's property, including his own. As the Minister said, the card that my right hon. Friend is waving before me is the property of the Government. However, that is a side issue. I understand that when he makes his point, he comes from the steel capital of Britain, but we are not talking about the nationalisation of British Steel.

Denis MacShane: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend-for whom I worked as a Parliamentary Private Secretary for many happy years-for giving way. I would be quite happy to concede the financial point if the Government were prepared to cut a deal and let me keep the card until it expired. That seems quite reasonable, because it is a European card. Every time I have used it to go through airports in the past three months, people have said, "Ooh, that's a good idea! The Brits are becoming like us." Well, thanks to the coalition, now we are not.

Keith Vaz: Let me say to my right hon. Friend, the former Minister for Europe-

Chris Bryant: We have a set of former Ministers for Europe in the Chamber.

Keith Vaz: Indeed. Let me say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) that he is the last person who needs an identity card to get into France. He is probably the only former Minister for Europe to be fluent in half a dozen European languages. His very face is sufficient to get him into the European Union.

Denis MacShane: But we are in the European Union.

Keith Vaz: I meant the mainland European Union.
	Anyway, before this becomes a debate about the European Union, let me say that I shall abstain on new clause 2. However, I am attracted to amendment 8, which stands in the name of my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), and not just because they are distinguished members of the Home Affairs Committee, as the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) is, but because there is a lot of merit in what they say. The Minister should take amendment 8 seriously. I do not know whether my hon. Friends will push it to a vote, but the destruction of the data is an important issue.
	When I raised this matter on the Floor of the House, following the Home Secretary's announcement that ID cards were to be abolished, either she or the Minister-I cannot be sure which-said that there would be a huge event in which all the data would be destroyed. I think that it was said, perhaps playfully, that there would be a big bonfire, and that Members of the House would be invited to attend such an event. I know that that was meant in jest, but this is a serious point.
	I support what the Government are doing to remove the names of innocent people from the database. That is absolutely a move in the right direction. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) asked whether the previous Government had lost their way on civil liberties issues, and I would say that we did a little, partly because of a lack of scrutiny by this House, rather than through any intent on the part of the Government. We should have been better at scrutinising legislation.
	I hope that, when the Minister responds, he will give us a clear statement on how the data are to be destroyed. My hon. Friends who have tabled amendment 8 have proposed a time limit of four months, within which a statement must be made to the House. I do not believe for one moment that that is an unreasonable request. I hope that the Minister will give my hon. Friends the assurances that they seek. This is not a huge issue, but it goes to the heart of what the coalition Government say that they are going to do with these data. We must not keep the data unless it is absolutely necessary to do so, and I hope that he will give some comfort to my hon. Friends, and an assurance that the data will be destroyed within four months.

Stewart Jackson: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), although he lapsed from his usual urbanity and eloquence when he did not recognise the difference between his charming sister and the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick)-

David Winnick: Who is also quite charming.

Stewart Jackson: That goes without saying.
	I am quite fond of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), but he rather over-egged the pudding. Let us remember that it was his Government who gave us 90-day detention without trial. In 2005, they told us that it was imperative that we force through that measure, disregarding hundreds of years of close attention to civil liberty and due process. They were then humiliated in an unprecedented vote-given that they had a 66-seat majority-and the proposal went down to 42 days.

David Winnick: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The previous Government did not give us 90 days. That proposal was defeated by the House of Commons.

Stewart Jackson: It was indeed defeated, by one vote, because of the good sense of many of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues on the then Government's side who saw that it would not be sensible to traduce the British traditions of liberty and fairness on the back of a scare campaign from some people who were taking an authoritarian, draconian approach. To be fair and open-minded, as I aspire to be, I should say that the debate went on in my own party as well. Some Conservatives took the view that we should be tough on law and order, and that we should do the right thing and support the then Prime Minister. A small number of my colleagues voted for that proposal. I must not perambulate too far from the new clause that we are debating, but we must bear in mind that context as we listen to Labour Members' arguments about civil liberties today. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) was absolutely right to say that, until that point, there had been a fine tradition in the Labour party of support for civil liberties.

Stephen McCabe: I want to ask the hon. Gentleman, whom I respect, whether the best symbol of a Government's faith in civil liberties is their support for a phone hacker in No. 10 and a Minister who spies on his own colleagues and friends-

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) should carry on with the debate on the new clause.

Stewart Jackson: I shall defer to the good sense of the Deputy Speaker and pass over those issues. I am mindful, of course, that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak has worked in the Whips Office, and that Whips are a bit more bare-knuckled in debates than some others. I shall move swiftly on.
	I want to talk about authority and establishing one's policies before an election. I made the point to the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) that-

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We are discussing new clause 2, and the hon. Gentleman must speak to that.

Stewart Jackson: By a circuitous route, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall speak to that new clause-

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. It might be helpful to the hon. Gentleman to know that he can talk about these matters on Third Reading, if that is the route that he wishes to take. If he could just speak to new clause 2 now, that would be much better.

Stewart Jackson: I shall speak specifically to the proposal about compensation, Mr Deputy Speaker. Please forgive me if I meandered somewhat.
	There is, of course, precedent for a party being elected, putting a programme forward and sticking to its manifesto commitments without paying compensation, even at a modest level. For instance, one has to think only of the assisted places scheme, a windfall tax on utilities or the national minimum wage-they all had fiscal ramifications, but the Conservative party in opposition did not insist that there was any necessity to make specific compensation to specific groups.

Stephen McCabe: On a minor point, this new clause is not asking for compensation per se; it asks for a reimbursement of £30 only for those who subsequently apply for a passport. It is designed to right a wrong; it is not a general request for compensation.

Stewart Jackson: The substantive general point, which the hon. Gentleman does not want to concede, is that what is happening is a direct result of a new Government who with their coalition partner have a mandate to take a decision that has fiscal ramifications through new legislation. My point is that the precedent has been set in the past for new legislation having financial ramifications; it will inevitably affect some groups of taxpayers and voters, but the Government will not see fit to compensate them in a particular way, even on a modest scale.
	Of course it is regrettable that some of the constituents of the hon. Member for Bolton West will be in a difficult position as a result of the decisions made, but I come back to the point that the two parties that form this Government won 60% of the vote on an unequivocal commitment to abolish identity cards, whereas the party that was unequivocally in favour of them comprehensively lost the election on 6 May. Although only a modest amount of money is involved, the amendment is inappropriate, particularly during a time of less than benign financial circumstances when we need to reduce the deficit.

Grahame Morris: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to contribute to the debate.
	Labour Members fully understand that repealing the Identity Cards Act 2006 and scrapping ID cards was a manifesto pledge of both the Conservative and the Liberal Democrat parties and that they are fulfilling a pledge to the electorate on this issue. In fact, I think this is one of the few actions taken by the coalition Government that can claim at least some sort of mandate from the public. I add, however, that Labour was elected in 2005 with a manifesto pledge that stated:
	"We will introduce ID cards, including biometric data like fingerprints, backed up by a national register and rolling out initially on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports."
	That was the manifesto basis on which the decisions were made.
	The current Government have taken the scheme in its infancy and killed it off before it has even had a chance to prove itself-in terms of finance, security, issues of identity theft, protection and, indeed, popularity, or any other measure of its worth. As we learned in Committee, the Government have their arguments, but in my view their reasons for revoking ID cards are weak, mean and, most important of all, costly to the taxpayer. In Committee, the Minister for Immigration stated that he was committed to abolishing identity cards
	"because it was-and, until the Bill is enacted, is-an expensive and misguided scheme." --[ Official Report, Identity Documents Public Bill Committee, 1 July 2010; c. 43.]
	That assertion is, I contend, completely wrong and misguided. The ID card scheme will become more expensive as soon as the Bill is enacted because the expenditure has already been incurred in setting up the scheme-on infrastructure, computer software and so forth. Furthermore, recovering that money relies on allowing the ID card scheme to continue. Conservative Members should remember that the expenditure was incurred subsequent to a manifesto commitment by the previous Labour Government.
	I do not want to dwell on the motives behind the Bill, and I suspect that the motives of Liberal Democrats are completely different from those of Conservative supporters. It is clear, however, that Conservative Members base their opposition to the ID card proposals on a false premise.

Heather Wheeler: I assure the hon. Gentleman that those who write to me in my constituency are asking me to scrap the ID legislation as quickly as possible, purely on the grounds of civil liberties. I find it astonishing that there can be any debate about this for much longer. Indeed, a number of people have suggested that we should wind up the debate immediately, although obviously a good many Members want to continue it. I have not received a single letter asking me-

Nigel Evans: Order. The hon. Lady's intervention is far too wide of what we are discussing at the moment.

Grahame Morris: I do not think that the Government's arguments have been effective. Aspects of the scheme deserve to be retained, and they are embodied in the new clauses and amendments. Clause 2 states:
	"All ID cards that are valid immediately before that day are to be treated as cancelled by the Secretary of State at the end of the period of one month beginning with that day."
	In Committee, the Minister stated proudly that this was the Government's first Bill. I am astonished that he can be pleased with himself, given that this first Bill from the new Government breaks a contract that was established between citizen and state. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), people put their faith in the Government and bought ID cards. They entered into that contract on a voluntary basis-there was no element of compulsion-and I believe that they have been let down sorely and spitefully by the Bill and the Government. The Government's behaviour is illogical, unfair and frankly unnecessary.
	Hon. Members have suggested various reasons why people may have decided to invest in ID cards. The need to protect their identities must have been a major concern, as identity theft is a huge problem which costs the economy billions of pounds and causes individuals untold stress and suffering. They may simply have wanted a more versatile method of identification-Labour Members have given some excellent examples of that-or even a proof of age. Whatever their reasons, they entered into a contract, and that contract should be honoured, but the coalition Government are tearing it up, and people who acted in good faith can justifiably feel let down.
	Members on the Government Benches have argued that it might have been reasonable for people to expect ID cards to be scrapped if the Tories won power. That applies to the Liberal Democrats as well, as it was in their manifesto. But should we really be sending the public the message that they should not take too much notice of what the current Government say, because the next Government may say something different? That is a dangerous message to send.

Pete Wishart: I know that the hon. Gentleman is already a very assiduous constituency Member of Parliament. When constituents asked me about ID cards before the last election, I gave them clear advice: I advised them not to obtain ID cards, because they were too controversial and might be rescinded. What would the hon. Gentleman have said if a constituent had asked his advice about ID cards, given that they were so contentious?

Grahame Morris: That is dangerous territory, which we explored earlier today and in Committee. If that principle is to be applied to what a Government may do, should it be applied to nationalisation without compensation? Is that the logic of the argument?
	The decision to terminate existing and operational ID cards one month after Royal Assent-I assume that the Bill will be passed today-with no compensation for those who have purchased cards is not only shameful, but a travesty. I mentioned that Labour had made a manifesto pledge to the public, and that the public had returned Labour to government in 2005. We implemented a scheme allowing a citizen to receive, for a £30 fee, a card which would expire in 10 years. For the current Government to come to office and turn that system on its head without consideration for those who participated in the scheme on a voluntary basis, and had handed over their money in good faith, strikes me as a complete dereliction of duty which sets a dangerous precedent for the future.

Guy Opperman: The hon. Gentleman talks about this being a dereliction of duty and so forth, but this is a scheme costing billions of pounds for barely 12,000 people that was trotted out in circumstances where there was no prospect of it being taken up.

Grahame Morris: The scheme is in its infancy and, essentially, it was only marketed in two areas-Manchester and London. It would have been rolled out further and then, presumably, have had much greater appeal. There is an interesting contradiction: the big corporate interests who were involved in this scheme were paid compensation, but no recompense is to be made to ordinary citizens who paid £30 for a card.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) mentioned that £30 figure. It may seem a trifling sum to some Members, but for a great many people, including many of my constituents, it is a considerable amount of money. There has been some discussion of why individuals on low incomes might have chosen to spend such a sum on an ID card, and whether many did so. We must consider the fact that alternative forms of identification are more expensive-for example, a provisional driving licence is an accepted form of ID commonly used by younger people as proof of age and it costs £50. There is a cost reason that led some people voluntarily to choose to buy an ID card, therefore. People on lower incomes who needed to prove their age would naturally be inclined to opt for an ID card, but whether the person who bought the card was on a low income or a millionaire is, in fact, irrelevant because the behaviour of this Government in not addressing the unfairness and injustice contained in the Bill is deplorable.
	I cannot see why the cards that have already been issued cannot in some way remain valid until their expiry date. The parties in the coalition Government have only a handful of policies on which they truly agree and I accept that not continuing with the ID card is among them, but not enough care has been given to reimbursing cardholders or to making some attempt to maintain already issued cards, perhaps with some reduced functionality. There remains a database for passports, and this card could perhaps, at least in some way, remain an authenticated identification document. Did the Minister seek any advice on possible functions for the already issued cards, or was he content just to allow them to fall? There seems to me to be no reason why the cards cannot remain valid until the expiry date.
	The Government are abandoning ID cards without any concern for the expenditure that has already been incurred by the taxpayer or any consideration for current ID cardholders, and with little thought for the future of British passport security and the use of biometric data. The Minister has had every opportunity to address the issues Opposition Members raised in Committee, and it is a shame that he was unable to work with us, at least to try to improve some aspects of the Bill.

Damian Green: We have heard a festival of synthetic indignation from Labour Members over the past hour or so. We know they do not mean it because they did not even vote against the Bill on Second Reading, so they do not oppose it very hard. They are scratching around to find ways to express some opposition.
	As has been amply illustrated by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), there are, however, some glimmers of light in the authoritarian dark that was the Labour Government. One or two of the leadership candidates, including the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), have said the previous Government were wrong about ID cards. The right hon. Gentleman says he thinks his party should move on from that idea. As that has been stated several times during the debate, I feel it is only fair also to record-

Stephen McCabe: Will the Minister give way?

Damian Green: I will in a moment, after I have paid tribute to the hon. Gentleman's colleague, the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who has consistently been against identity cards. As we are mentioning the Labour party leadership candidates who are virtuous in this regard, I should mention her too, because no Labour Member did.

Stephen McCabe: I hate to interrupt the Minister when he is in such fine flow, but I just want to suggest to him that he has misunderstood our position. This is not synthetic indignation and nobody on our side is rejecting the Government's right to abolish ID cards-in fact, a number of us have acknowledged it. We are objecting to the mean-minded attitude that sets out to punish the relatively small number of people who bought ID cards in good faith.

Damian Green: The hon. Gentleman made that point, with characteristic eloquence, in his speech, and I will address it shortly. I am pleased to report to the House that, as those who sat through the Committee stage will be aware, the Labour party has come up with no new ideas to defend the ID cards scheme since then; we have heard all these arguments before.
	This group of amendments, which groups together all the arguments that the Opposition can make against the Bill, is a series of impractical and expensive suggestions, made, I suspect, with varying degrees of seriousness. If I were to be kinder than I have up to now, I might say that some of them may excite genuine feelings among Opposition Members, but others have been tabled for the sake of it.
	First, I shall deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) and repeated by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) about refunds or passport-related refunds. We debated this extensively in Committee, and I recognise that £30 is a significant sum to many people, particularly those who are struggling economically in these difficult times, when the Government have had to absorb a terrible economic inheritance from their predecessor.
	I do not have any data on the socio-economic status of the very small number of people who bought ID cards, nor, as far as I am aware, do any Labour Members. Before anyone stands up to ask me about this, I shall say that I do not propose to waste any public money by undertaking a survey of who they are. There are times when even those in this House need to step back and apply some common sense to the matters before them. I do not think that anyone in really difficult economic and financial circumstances would have thought, "What is the best thing to spend £30 on this week? I know, a very controversial ID card that will enable me to travel to Europe, but not anywhere else in the world. That's the most important thing to spend my last £30 on." I do not believe that one person in this country took that decision, and I have heard nothing from those on the Opposition Benches opposite during our discussion of this Bill to convince me that that is any way a realistic proposition.
	I further point out to the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who leads for the Labour party on this, that the charging system for ID cards introduced by her Government took no notice of the ability to pay. They set a flat fee, which took no account of whether someone was unemployed, an old-age pensioner or in full-time employment, like the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane). Sadly, he is no longer in his place, but he was asking us whether he should have claimed for his ID card on expenses. I would have thought that, at the time, that would have been a seriously terrible idea.
	The only exception made on this flat fee of £30 that these allegedly struggling people were paying was for those who were in employment and working at one of the airports, where the then Government were anxious to foist the scheme on people in its early days. Anyone in that position would have been one of the 3,000 or so who were given a card free of charge. Those 3,000 lucky people-all, by definition in full-time employment-represent almost 20% of those to whom any card was ever issued. Of course, those cards were paid for by the taxpayer, so when one actually looks behind the indignation expressed by Labour Members, one does not find any substantial argument on this, which they have made the main point of their attack on this Bill.
	The Government inherited an ID card scheme that has found very little favour with the public. That is a key issue. Many Opposition Members have talked about the costs, and the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) advanced the extraordinary proposition that even though he accepted that the coalition Government had the perfect right to get rid of the ID cards scheme, we should have carried on with it because the longer it went on the further the costs would be spread. That seemed to me an extraordinary attitude to parliamentary democracy. This is a key issue as the taxpayer has already paid £292 million with fewer than 15,000 cards having been issued-20% of them paid for by the taxpayer. So the calculation at the moment is that the cost to the taxpayer so far is about £20,000 per card. If we exclude the cards issued free of charge, it is £25,000 per card. That is by any standards a scandalous waste of public money that lies squarely at the door of Ministers in the previous Government.
	The argument has come from the hon. Member for Easington that the scheme would have become self-financing over time. Based on public demand, there is no evidence to support that, particularly when the cost report in 2009, produced by the Labour party when it was in government, showed that a further £835 million was to be spent on ID cards by 2019, either by the taxpayer or by individual citizens having to sign up for those cards.
	In the light of those facts and the already excessive spending of taxpayers' money on an unpopular and deeply intrusive scheme, we have proposed this Bill. That is why we opposed ID cards in opposition and why we have introduced this Bill so quickly. We do not see why the taxpayer should have to pay yet again. During the debate, several of my hon. Friends asked how much the cancellation would cost, and the answer is about £400,000. As I have illustrated, enough has been spent on the scheme and the taxpayer should not face a further bill of the best part of half a million pounds. That is why we have been clear that refunds will not be offered.

Julie Hilling: How much would it cost the taxpayer, though, if people had a £30 credit when they applied for their passports? Why would it be costly?

Damian Green: As a practical point, the vast majority of people who have bought ID cards already have passports, so it would be entirely valueless to them.
	There are practical difficulties with the amendment. It would require the keeping of identity card records for many years to come to ensure that only those who were entitled to a refund could apply for one. I shall come on to the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak about the destruction of data, but we have made it very clear that we will destroy all the data obtained under the ID cards scheme and that we do not wish to retain any data for this reason or for any other.
	I observe in the group of amendments that we are discussing that the twin threats are unnecessary data retention and cost to the taxpayer. Those are the two things that Labour Members who proposed the amendments seem to be concerned about. I assume that new clause 4 is intended to be helpful in avoiding the need for an individual to provide further personal information in the event that they should subsequently apply for a passport. The hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) is, I am sure, aware that, as I have just said, the vast majority of ID cardholders are or were passport holders, so the information relevant to a passport application will already be held on passport records.
	In any case, the proposed new clause misses the point of the Bill. The Identity Documents Bill is about scrapping the ID card scheme and destroying the national identity register. We are opposed to the register in principle on the grounds that it is a database holding huge amounts of personal and biometric data simply because a person has applied for an identity card. We do not believe that holding the data is either necessary or proportionate for the purpose for which they were obtained. Instead, it represents a significant intrusion by the state into the lives of our citizens. That is why we are looking to destroy all the information recorded on the NIR. Officials are currently finalising work with contractors on how that will be achieved and the Information Commissioner's Office has been notified of the destruction process.

Keith Vaz: That is very reassuring, but in his mind and that of the Home Secretary is there a time scale by which this should be done? We appreciate that contractors have been instructed, but has the Minister said that the Government would like that done in a certain number of months?

Damian Green: It would be slightly premature for me to give too much detail now because the legislation has not been passed. We have tried to be as clear as possible in saying that we will do it as quickly as possible after the Bill has passed through all its stages, but I do not wish unnecessarily to annoy or provoke the other place by saying anything else.

Stephen McCabe: Can the Minister give the House a categorical assurance that all the information will be destroyed within two months of the Act passing?

Damian Green: The hon. Gentleman has ingeniously asked the same question as his right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, to which I shall therefore give exactly the same answer, or revert to an old parliamentary phrase and refer him to the answer I gave some moments ago. We are in contact with the Information Commissioner's Office about the destruction process, as I have said, precisely to ensure transparency and openness about the physical destruction process.
	The Chairman of the Committee made the point that I had jokingly suggested that we might have a sort of auto-da-fé of all that unnecessary information. I was only half joking when I said that and, sadly, it is not possible because the information is on various databases, so we are going to have to delete it. To answer the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak's technical question, that is like any other act of removing information and involves deleting it from the various databases. That is why we are doing it in conjunction with the Information Commissioner. The hon. Gentleman is waving the Bill it me, so I will say that it must be done within two months of Royal Assent. The reason why I cannot give the exact answer that the Chairman of the Committee wants is simply that I do not know when Royal Assent will be, but I hope that it is soon. We will then do it as soon as possible within the two months set out in the Bill. I hope that reassures the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak. There is a serious point here: if one believes, as we on the Government side do, that this information has been held unnecessarily, it is sensible to get rid of it as soon as possible, and Parliament needs to know about that.

Stephen McCabe: rose -

Damian Green: Let me anticipate what the hon. Gentleman is about to ask. It has always been my intention that when that had happened, Parliament would be informed by way of a written ministerial statement about both the process and delivery of destruction. I could not be more open or transparent about this. We will do it within two months and as soon as possible after Royal Assent. When we have done it, I shall produce a written parliamentary statement that will say not only that we have done it but how we have done it. I hope that I have finally satisfied the hon. Gentleman on all those points.
	On new clause 4, I suspect that hon. Members may not have considered its cost implications. There are significant costs associated with establishing whether a person wants their record to be retained, what information he or she is content to be transferred, the security and data transfer costs and, finally, future storage costs-particularly if the person does not subsequently apply for a passport. I am afraid that this is another amendment that seems intent on adding again and again to the cost of the ID card scheme. We want to scrap the scheme at minimal cost to the taxpayer. The new clause would not achieve that aim and would not remove the state's ability to retain data without good reason.
	That profligate approach is evidenced in another of the amendments before us, supported by the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South. We covered the issue of the life expectancy of the card during earlier stages of the Bill and indicated then that the cost of implementing that amendment would be between £50 million and £60 million over 10 years.
	I note that the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch has not added her name to the provision, despite tabling something similar in Committee. She indicated in Committee that she thought that figure was at the top end of the estimates, but I am not sure of the basis on which she reached that conclusion. The estimate is a reasonable reflection of the exorbitant cost to the taxpayer that would be incurred by providing a service over the next decade for fewer than 15,000 people, almost 3,000 of whom did not pay for their card in the first place. Leaving aside the cost, the proposal would mean retaining the whole national identity register for another decade, which would involve holding the fingerprints of 15,000 innocent people.

Meg Hillier: I wonder whether the Minister is speaking to the right provision because my name is attached to the amendment, as it has always been.

Damian Green: I apologise to the hon. Lady. If she wishes to associate herself with such a ridiculous proposal, I am happy for her to do so.
	The proposal would mean that cardholders would run the risk of their card's usefulness diminishing even further over time because of the very small number in circulation. That would be likely to result in little or no future engagement or investment by travel operators, carriers and other agencies in accepting ID cards. The provision would give cardholders the false hope that their ID card would continue to be useful, if they had found it useful in the past. I recognise that the amendment to retain the national identity register has been tabled as a consequence of the proposal that ID cards should remain extant for 10 years.
	The national identity register sits at the heart of our opposition to the whole scheme. We do not believe that it is the role of the state to gather huge amounts of personal and biometric information about its citizens unless there are proportionate and necessary reasons for doing so. Such reasons could involve the prevention and detection of crime, or national security and safety, but part of the underlying problem with the ID card scheme has always been that its purpose was ill defined, with the reason behind its introduction moving over time from dealing with terrorism to accessing local services.
	The national identity register is nothing but a database containing data on individuals who have, by choice, applied for an ID card. The holding of such data represents a significant intrusion on the privacy of the individual. Scrapping the scheme and destroying the national identity register are major steps towards returning power to the public and reducing the intrusion of the state. We are opposed to building up banks of data that neither serve a specific purpose nor deliver a specific outcome. The national identity register fails on both counts.
	I have dealt in some detail with all the new clauses and amendments tabled by Labour Members. Each of them fails on practicality, and many of them fail because they would create an extra charge on either the public purse directly, or the citizens of this country indirectly. They all fail, however, because behind them lies the desire to intrude far too much on the private lives of people that was at the heart of the previous Labour Government. As a civil libertarian, I genuinely hope that the future Labour party will reject that in its entirety.

Meg Hillier: I was puzzled by the Minister's speech because it sounded more like a rallying cry to a group of students than an attempt to address the new clauses and amendments. I should say, however, that I have no problem with rallying cries to groups of students in their place. In fact, not long before the election-when the Minister and I sat on opposite sides of the House-we addressed students together, and he announced that a Conservative Government would remove ID cards to an audience of about 25 people.
	Let me make it absolutely clear that we tabled new clauses 2 and 4 as alternatives for the Government to consider as we try to find a way of providing some recompense to those members of the public who bought the cards in good faith. We would have preferred to have tabled a measure providing for a refund but, because there is no money resolution attached to the Bill, we could not. With that in mind, we intend to press both new clauses to Divisions, although if the first is agreed to, we will not need a vote on the second.
	I need to pick up on a couple of points that the Minister made. We were not suggesting in the amendments-perhaps he should look more closely at them-that we expect the national identity register to continue. They were carefully worded to suggest migration of data to the existing passport database. In fact, the identity register would have been a modern passport database, had the Government had the courage to continue that approach.
	New clause 4 is not about being helpful to those who already had passports or wanted a passport. It would allow cards to continue, but would attach them to the existing passport database. Accepting that the Government's intention is to destroy the national identity register, it sought to find a solution to that. The Minister has not given very good answers about why that could not be done. Had the Government included a money resolution, it would have been possible-instead of sending two letters out to everybody-to provide a refund to those who had paid or those who had applied for a refund, which would not necessarily have been everybody. The Government's approach is mean-spirited.
	The Minister spoke about the state holding huge amounts of information. I hope that his Government still believe that the NHS should hold information on people, that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency should hold information, and that the passport database should exist. The national identity register was a modernisation of the passport database.
	I assure the House and anyone else who may be watching proceedings today that there is nothing synthetic about our indignation. We recognise that both Government parties had clear policies on the issue, and we can do the maths. We know that we have limited options to improve the Bill, and we are trying to make the best of a bad job because the Bill does many things of which we disapprove. New clauses 2 and 4 attempt to provide some recompense to the people affected.
	We have heard some disparaging comments. The hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) spoke about politics being tough. It is clear that his Government are saying that it is tough on members of the public who bought a card. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) spoke about the mugs who bought a card. That disparaging attitude may well be reflected in the Lobby, so let us be clear who is on the side of the consumer in this case. It is certainly not the Government.
	The Minister used his cod maths when talking about the cost of the identity card scheme. It does not behove a Government Minister to be so flippant and free with figures when he well knows that the cards had to be paid for by fees. As is the case with the first issue of anything, when the first Mini rolled off the production line, it probably cost several million, if not billions of pounds, but for the last Mini, by definition, the cost per item was much lower because many thousand would have been produced. Identity cards had been issued for a few months at the time of the general election, but under Treasury rules they had to be paid for out of fees, just like passports, as the Minister knows. It ill behoves him to take that approach. I wish to divide the House on the new clauses.
	 Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
	 The House proceeded to a Division.

Nigel Evans: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 189, Noes 302.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 4
	 — 
	Transfer of information from National Identity Register to Identity and Passport Service

'The Secretary of State must ensure that any information recorded in the National Identity Register which-
	(a) relates to a person ("P") who has indicated that P wishes to retain P's identity card until its expiry date, and
	(b) is relevant to an application by P for a passport,
	is transferred to the Identity and Passport Service.'.- (Tony Cunningham.)
	 Brought up, and read the First time.
	 Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
	 The House divided: Ayes 193, Noes 311.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1
	 — 
	Repeal of Identity Cards Act 2006

Damian Green: I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 9, leave out
	'(with consequential amendments) by this Act'
	and insert
	'by this Act (with consequential amendments and, in the case of section 38, also with minor amendments)'.

Nigel Evans: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 2 to 4.

Damian Green: The amendments address an issue that was much discussed in Committee. They are not central to the Bill itself, but they are an important part of the wider picture. As we have already discussed at all stages, the Bill is about scrapping ID cards, destroying the data held on the national identity register and, as a result, removing the disproportionate hand of the state in the gathering of personal and biometric data for the purpose of issuing an ID card. It removes the ability of the state to require that a cardholder informs the state for the next 10 years of their personal circumstances, and it removes the threat of a heavy fine of up to £1,000 should they fail to do so.
	Most of the clauses in the Bill re-enact the parts of the Identity Cards Act 2006 that were useful and proportionate. Clause 1 re-enacts the provisions of section 38 of the 2006 Act, which allows the Secretary of State to require relevant information to be provided to verify information provided in a passport application or to decide whether to withdraw a passport. In this context, "relevant information" includes identity information to confirm that the applicant is a real person and the person whom they claim to be. It enables the Identity and Passport Service to obtain information relevant to the application and considered necessary to conduct an effective interview with first-time applicants. That may include records from the credit reference agency that will show how long the person has lived at an address and at how many addresses they have lived. It would be unlawful and a breach of the Data Protection Act to require information that was not relevant to the passport application.
	During the oral evidence sessions in Committee, two pressure groups-Liberty and Justice-supported the provisions in the clause, which is a welcome and envious position for any Government when bringing new legislation before Parliament. However, I indicated in Committee that I would welcome representations from members of the Committee on the scope of clause 10-in particular, on ensuring that information obtained is indeed passport-specific-and on the retention policy on data obtained.
	Many points were made in Committee, and I have reflected on them. Many of the most cogent points were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who is sadly not in his place today. As he indicated in the fifth sitting of the Committee, clause 10 would benefit from greater clarity about the Secretary of State's ability to require information. The amendments before the House would place a statutory limitation in the Bill, requiring that information be obtained only in respect of the passport application.
	It would not be appropriate for two reasons, still less practical, to list what that information may be. First, doing so would obviously alert potential fraudsters to the categories or sources of information being used, and may give them an indication of what information sources they should satisfy to ensure that a fraudulent passport application might be successful. Secondly, the format and source from which information could be obtained is not exhaustive, and it would be unnecessarily restrictive on the operational ability of the Identity and Passport Service not to be able to make use of verification sources that would support the main aim of preventing and reducing fraud. Importantly, we believe that we have strengthened the legislation by clarifying in the Bill that any information required must be relevant to the passport application.
	The amendments to clause 10 also place a requirement on the Secretary of State to destroy any information obtained under the clause within 28 days of the passport being issued. That is already current practice in the Identity and Passport Service, but placing the requirement on to a statutory footing will increase transparency and accountability. Where information has been obtained in consideration of a possible withdrawal of the passport, any information gathered must be destroyed within 28 days of a decision not to withdraw the passport. Where a passport has been refused, the information will be retained only for as long as is necessary for possible investigative and prosecutorial purposes. We believe that that is a proportionate approach to data retention, and it is appropriate that the retention policy should be set out in the Bill. Amendment 1 is a technical amendment, proposed in the light of the changes to clause 10 that I have outlined.
	The passage of the Bill through this House has served to illustrate the level of support for our overall policy of scrapping the ID card scheme. The Bill went through unopposed on Second Reading. I commend the wisdom of the Opposition in not seeking to oppose the principle of the Bill, although their rhetoric has not quite matched the practicalities of their votes. However, one thing that does not divide me from the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who leads for the Opposition on this issue, is that we both recognise that we must continue to do everything that we can to tackle identity fraud. We recognise the importance of clause 10 in preventing and combating fraud, and in maintaining the effectiveness of counter-fraud investigators in achieving successful prosecutions against those who seek to make fraudulent applications. With the amendments, the revised clause 10 will achieve that, at the same time as increasing transparency and accountability. I hope that hon. Members from all parts of the House will welcome the improvements that the amendments propose.

Meg Hillier: In general terms, Her Majesty's Opposition support the amendments, but I have a number of small points to make and questions to ask of the Minister. I understand his reasons for not publishing the list of organisations that might be referred to. I recognise the valid security reasons for that, but it does rather go against his desire for transparency. I wonder how he will try to square that circle, to ensure that safeguards are in place with respect to which organisations are approached. I am aware that internal audits take place on a routine basis in passport offices up and down our different countries. However, the Minister has made much of the need for transparency and safeguards, and the two do not work well together.
	I reserve judgment on the proposal to retain data for 28 days. I recognise that the current practice in the Identity and Passport Service works quite well, and it is interesting that the Government want to put those arrangements on to a statutory footing. It is interesting partly because passports are issued under the royal prerogative, an arrangement that is not on a statutory footing. I also wonder whether such a move might limit any necessary flexibility. What conversations has the Minister had with those who deal with the security of our passports, in particularly the excellent team based in the Glasgow passport office, who often put themselves at great risk while investigating and uncovering fraud? I am aware that data relating, in particular, to withdrawn passports can be especially important in uncovering rings of individuals trying to help others fraudulently to obtain passports. Generally, I support the principle of not holding information any longer than is necessary for this purpose, but we need to ensure that the Government are not unnecessarily restricting action on fraud.
	In passing, I must also add that the Bill is a lost opportunity to tackle fraud. Had we still been pursuing the inclusion of fingerprints in passports, which the Minister is throwing out under the terms of the Bill, that would have helped to reduce fraud more generally. If the Minister can answer those two points, it would reassure me considerably.

Damian Green: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her questions. As I understand it, in one of them she is suggesting that I am being too transparent, and in the other that I am not being transparent enough. I appreciate the difficulties of opposition, having had 13 years of it, just as she will appreciate some of the pressures on Ministers. She asked me to reveal internal conversations within the Department, particularly with people who are involved with difficult and dangerous anti-fraud operations. She will know as well as I do that it would be hugely inappropriate and unwise for me to answer that question directly.

Meg Hillier: I fully appreciate that, but I did not actually ask the Minister to answer that question directly. I shall take him to be a man of honour and a man of his word if he can tell us that these issues have been fully explored and that he is personally content about them. It is important that the House should know that that is the case, partly because those individuals put themselves in harm's way when doing their job.

Damian Green: Indeed so. This is not an adversarial climate, but the hon. Lady will know as well as I do that striking a balance between transparency and flexibility on the one hand and security on the other lies at the heart of much of what the Home Office does, and, indeed, of much of what the Bill seeks to do. She and I would probably find ourselves on different points of that particular spectrum, but we both recognise that it is a spectrum within which we both have to operate. I can only say that it would clearly not be appropriate for me to set out for the benefit of potential fraudsters which organisations they would have to satisfy in order to be issued with a passport, so I shall decline the opportunity to talk to her about the individual organisations concerned.

Meg Hillier: If the Minister is not hearing what I am saying, perhaps there is an issue about how he is answering questions generally. I was not asking him to do that, so that is fine; we agree. I simply want to know whether he feels personally reassured that these measures will not detract from the ability of the UK Passport Service to carry out the security checks that normally take place. If that was not clear before, I hope that it is now absolutely clear. I do not think that we are asking for different things; I am just seeking reassurance from the Minister that he has done his job as thoroughly as I expect he has.

Damian Green: Of course the Department that the hon. Lady used to be responsible for would not put the security of our passports at risk.
	To answer the hon. Lady's other point, information relevant to future investigations would be retained under the proposals before us, with the amendments here. I hope that she will agree that that strikes an appropriate balance. Genuine concerns were expressed-not just by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), but by Members of all parties-to the effect that the simple repetition of the original clause might put us at the wrong side on the spectrum between transparency and security. That is why I agreed to put the 28-day provision directly in the Bill. The hon. Lady asked about that, and I see no reason to believe that this will in any way inhibit or impede anti-fraud operations. What the amendments will do by changing the clause is to allow operations to be properly conducted while at the same time reassuring individual applicants that any information they give is not kept for an unnecessarily long period of time. That is what this set of amendments is designed to achieve. I commend them to the House.
	 Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause 10
	 — 
	Verification of information

Amendments made: 2, page 5, line 24, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert-
	'(1) This section applies where it appears to the Secretary of State that a person within subsection (4) may have information that could be used-
	(a) for verifying information provided to the Secretary of State for the purposes of, or in connection with, an application for the issue of a passport, or
	(b) for determining whether to withdraw an individual's passport.
	(2) For the purpose of making the verification or determination mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b), the Secretary of State may require the person within subsection (4) to provide the Secretary of State with the information by a date specified in the requirement.'.
	Amendment 3, page 6, line 2, leave out
	'of relevant information to the Secretary of State'
	and insert
	'to the Secretary of State of information that could be used as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b)'.
	Amendment 4, page 6, line 16, at end insert-
	'(8A) In a case within subsection (1)(a) where a passport is issued, information provided in accordance with this section must be destroyed no later than 28 days after the passport is issued.
	(8B) In a case within subsection (1)(b) where a passport is not withdrawn, information provided in accordance with this section must be destroyed no later than 28 days after the determination is made not to withdraw the passport.
	(8C) Subsections (8A) and (8B) do not apply in a case where it appears to the Secretary of State to be desirable to retain the information for the purpose of-
	(a) preventing or detecting crime, or
	(b) apprehending or prosecuting offenders.'.- (Damian Green.)
	 Third  Reading

Damian Green: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	It is a huge pleasure to move Third Reading. The Bill has now proceeded through the scrutiny stages of this House. I appreciate that this is a short and simple Bill, but it is a genuinely historic one-not only because, as mentioned, it was the first Bill introduced by the coalition Government, but because its content is historic and marks a significant shift in direction in the relationship between the state and the citizen in this country. That in itself represents a significant step forward.
	The House has agreed to destroy data held by the state without condition or distinction. Consigning the ID cards scheme and the national identity register to the scrapheap reflects the absolute commitment of the coalition Government to reduce the interference of the state and return power back to the people. I am very proud of what the Bill will achieve and I am encouraged by the support for it in all parts of the House. I emphasise "all parts" because we have had some fairly partisan debates this afternoon, but even Labour Members have admitted that the Conservative party had a clear commitment in its manifesto, as did the Liberal Democrats and the nationalist parties in their manifestos.
	Many of us welcome the fact that two fifths of wisdom is beginning to creep into the Labour party in that two of the five leadership candidates have decided that the ID card scheme was a mistake. I fear for those who have expressed such strong support for that scheme; if the wrong Miliband wins, they could be in trouble. I also fear for the peace of the dinner party in that the civil libertarian/authoritarian divide is beginning to open up in the Labour party and has even opened up in the Miliband family. This will be an issue that they will have to resolve in a few weeks' time.
	This Bill has sought to repeal parts of the 2006 Act that dealt with the ID card scheme, but we have been careful-I want to emphasise this-to re-enact the important powers on fraud prevention and detection available to protect the public. There is no reduction in public security as a result of the Bill; rather, it is about seeing an enormous increase in public freedom.
	I am grateful to all hon. Members who have taken part in the Bill's scrutiny. We have taken on board the concerns raised on Second Reading and in Committee on information verification, and we have successfully tabled amendments to strengthen safeguards for the public and raise accountability. We noted the comments made in Committee about transgendered people, and will engage in further work with international colleagues in relation to the points raised about passports.
	The Bill should also be seen as part of a wider programme to increase individual freedom. Along with Bills such as the freedom Bill, it will, as I have said, alter the balance irrevocably, giving us more powerful citizens and a less than all-powerful state. That is one of the significant changes for the better that the Government will be able to achieve for the country.
	There was a discussion about who was responsible for the ID card scheme: about whether it was a new Labour creation, or, ingeniously, the creation of my noble and learned Friend Lord Howard of Lympne. The truth is that it was neither. We had ID cards in this country during the second world war. They were abolished in the 1950s, to great public acclaim, by a Conservative Government who concentrated, as we have done throughout the decades, on the importance of maintaining the power of the citizen.
	In times of crisis, Governments often return to ID card schemes, and it was clearly the view of the last Government that Britain was at war after 9/11, that we were at war with terrorists permanently, and that we therefore needed to be put on a permanent war footing. It is at the heart of the contention of those of us who voted against the original Bill, and campaigned successfully against it-as has now been proved with the passage of this legislation-that we cannot and should not lead our lives as though we were in a state of permanent warfare: that if people's freedoms are restricted so much in an attempt to defend those freedoms, those who threaten our freedoms have already won.
	This is a significant victory for the British people. I pay tribute not only to Members on both sides of the House who have supported the Bill, but to the various pressure groups which have been involved. Liberty and Justice have been mentioned, but I also pay tribute to the No2ID campaign, which can chalk itself up as one of the most successful pressure groups in history. It was formed less than 10 years ago, and within a decade of its formation it has achieved its principal aim.
	No doubt all the pressure groups that I have just praised will spend the next few years complaining that we have not gone far enough in various directions. However, I look forward to constructive discussions with them. The broad conclusion that the country can draw from the passage of the Bill is that the march of freedom is happening again, and the British people are beginning to recover their historic freedoms and gain new freedoms. That is one of the many ways in which this Government will improve the lives of people throughout the country.

David Blunkett: In a speech on Second Reading, when there was a time limit, I paid tribute to campaigning groups that had been extremely effective in swaying opinion in the media, at least-if not the opinion of the country-against the idea of new forms of biometric recording and an up-to-date and verifiable national register showing who was in the country and their identity. I now pay tribute to the Minister for his dedicated work in opposition, and in the four months of the coalition Government, in implementing the commitment of the coalition partners.
	I do not, however, pay tribute to people who believe their own rhetoric. I have done it myself, and it is not a good idea. Eventually one comes to believe things that are not true, such as the idea that the last Government took away our civil liberties and were intent on strengthening the authoritarianism of the state. I am very sad that people who are standing for senior office in my party have also bought the myth that a second-generation biometric register somehow took away the civil liberties of the British people. However, we lost the election, and those of us who believed that we were doing the right thing lost a level of the debate that was crucial to the continuation of the scheme.
	I am very happy to pay tribute to Lord Howard as the father of the modern scheme. We did not have the facility of second-generation biometrics when he advocated the scheme in 1996. However, he at least understood that if we were going to control unwarranted immigration, deal with the rising level of fraud, which was minuscule compared with the level today, and tackle the verification and authentication of genuine identity not least in respect of access to what are, uniquely, free public services such as the NHS, we needed something better than the passport as we had it then, and, it has to be said, as we have it today even with the improvements in the photographic evidence.
	I wish the Government well in implementing e-Borders in their border police force. I do not know how that will enhance the sophistication of addressing illegal entry into the country or the identification of those who are already illegally here given that when in 2004 we introduced the registration system for the extended European Union A8 nationals we found that 40% of the people who registered were already in the country before the freedom of movement regulations had come into being for those new EU entrant countries. I do not know how the Government are going to do this, therefore, but I wish them well in trying.
	This evening, I merely want to say that I speak as someone who has spent years persuading their senior colleagues in Cabinet to go in a particular direction and who has taken the slings and arrows of being accused of being authoritarian because they genuinely believe that updating the evidence that is already taken for the passport and the driving licence makes sense as it will be genuinely authentic-as opposed to the myth we peddle that somehow the identity documents we use are genuinely verifiable when they are not. In short, I speak as someone who has been told that they have betrayed the civil liberties and historical rights of people in this country when they have not, yet my only regret is that, having spent so much time having to put up with the black looks of Lord Prescott and the grumbles of our former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), and having eventually won the decision in government and started to implement the policy, I find that I am defeated at the last hurdle.
	All I can say is congratulations to those who have won and commiserations to those who were misled into believing that ID cards would cost £2.5 billion and there were therefore going to be major savings from scrapping them, rather than the sum of £84 million over four years. I say commiserations to those who feel they were taking a great step yet find that that step has not led them anywhere new at all.
	The Minister said on 9 June that the civil libertarians were in the ascendant in the Conservative party today and that is true, but let us not confuse libertarianism with liberty. Let us not confuse being concerned about out and out libertarianism with authoritarianism. These are not opposites; they are nuanced issues and they are difficult to deal with in government at a time of-whatever Ministers may feel-continuing risk. I should also point out that we must ensure that we move as the international community moves, because I guarantee that within 30 years second-generation biometrics will be used for international passport purposes.
	Finally, I say just three words: rest in peace.

Keith Vaz: It is a great pleasure to follow the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), who took us all the way back to the birth of ID cards and has now read out their last rites in the Chamber of the House of Commons. I do not think he should take the criticism of the last Labour Government personally. People say many things in leadership election campaigns. Let us see what happens next week when, in opposition, we have an opportunity to fashion our new policies. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for all he did as Home Secretary on so many issues to do with his portfolio.
	I also pay tribute to the Minister. Anyone who has followed Home Office debates over the past few years since he has been on the Front Bench will have noted the enthusiasm, delight and intellectual vigour that he put into the campaign against identity cards. I am sure it gives him great satisfaction to be here to read the last rites of the identity cards and to do so very modestly. I suppose that when faced with the Liberal Democrats, the Conservative party, the Scottish National party, Justice and Liberty-a very odd combination-it is probably right that the official Opposition have, in a sense, thrown in the towel. The shadow Minister accepted that there was no appetite among Labour Members to oppose the Bill on Second Reading and she tabled some carefully thought-out amendments, but the Government, with their majority and with this Bill as a central part of their Home Office agenda, have got their Bill through, after only 12 weeks.
	I hope that the Minister will take seriously-I know that he will-the concerns expressed about the destruction of data. The Select Committee on Home Affairs will be writing to him in two months' time. I know that he did not give that as the absolute timetable, but he mentioned two months and then a further two months, and he then said that this would depend on what happens in the other place. I do not think that it will be a problem there, so by Christmas or, at least, by the new year we should be in a position to know that these data have been destroyed. I am sure that we will be writing to him to ensure that now that the funeral is over, the ashes will be scattered in about four months' time.

Tom Brake: This is indeed an historic occasion and it is gratifying that the coalition has been able to deliver so early in its life such a significant change and such an improvement in our civil liberties. This is clearly the first stage in a much wider programme. Members on the Government Benches have been accused of being obsessed with civil liberties, but it is a sign of how regressive or repressive the Labour Government had become that they characterised supporters and defenders of civil liberties as people, or Members, who were obsessed with that subject over and above any other.
	The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) spoke of the so-called myth that the previous Government had an agenda that was contrary to civil liberties. However, they gave us identity cards, which we no longer have. We also had pre-charge detention, control orders, fingerprinting in schools and DNA retention. In my view, that constituted a full-frontal assault on our civil liberties, and we are right to try to redress the balance. He also said that there might be only £84 million-worth of savings-I do not know whether he actually used the word "only". Even if that figure is indeed right, in the current context those are savings that we need to achieve.
	In my view, and that of the coalition Government, this Bill is just the first step in a programme of rebuilding and restoring our reputation as a nation that values civil liberties and is willing to defend them whenever they are under assault.

Pete Wishart: Good riddance to the most thoroughly bad rubbish. Thank goodness we are standing on the brink of getting rid of the pernicious and hated ID cards. They were new Labour ID cards-NLID cards, as I called them in the previous debate-created solely by the previous Government. They are now thankfully being abolished, and I give great credit to the coalition Government for being able to introduce this Bill so quickly. Thank goodness we are getting shot of these cards today.
	I also wish to pay tribute to the many campaigners who fought so hard and long to ensure that we never saw ID cards introduced in this country. I am referring to NO2ID, Liberty and all the other groups that were out there campaigning. This became a real election issue, and I am sure that other hon. Members also found that it was regularly raised in the hustings. People talked about Labour's creeping authoritarian state and its anti-civil libertarian agenda, and how Labour must be stopped. Thankfully, today is the day that we can put to bed not just ID cards but, I hope, the whole anti-civil libertarian agenda that the Labour party tried to foist on us.
	This Bill has been relatively easy for the Liberals and Conservatives as well as for those of us in the Scottish National party and other national parties. We opposed these things-we hated them and we wanted rid of them. This has been a real challenge for Labour party Members and I have watched their agony throughout this Bill. I did not know whether they were going to oppose it or support it. I had to wait for the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) to get to his feet to know whether it would be the first line of the next Labour manifesto or whether they were going to support the scrapping.
	I still do not know what Labour Members' response to ID cards is. They have not opposed them in any way. They supported Second Reading-or abstained-and they proposed tame, minimal amendments in Committee. We have heard a lot of huff and puff today about compensation, but I still do not know what the Labour party's approach to ID cards is. I would like to hear-perhaps in the summing up-whether it has now dropped the whole idea. I hope that it has, because Labour should come home. We need the Labour party in opposition to come home to its civil libertarian past.

Julie Hilling: When poor people in the hon. Gentleman's constituency want to open a bank account or do any of the many things for which people need to prove their identity, if they do not drive and do not have utility bills how will they prove their identity in his new free world?

Pete Wishart: This is the thing that the Labour party consistently refuses to appreciate and understand. ID cards were an attempt to change the whole nature of the relationship between the individual and the state. That was what they were about. People in groups such as Liberty and NO2ID did not oppose ID cards because they were a nice cuddly little thing that would help people to access services-they opposed them because they were a new element to the relationship between state and individual. That was why ID cards became so hated throughout the nation.

David Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman is emotionally attached to the idea of the perniciousness of the scheme, but I want gently to test how far his libertarianism would go. There are two states in the United States where a blind person can obtain a licence to own a gun. One of those states does not require a blind person to have a driving licence-

Nigel Evans: Order. That point is wide of Third Reading, but is a good try none the less.

Stephen Pound: It was a good point.

Pete Wishart: It was a good point, and you have rescued me, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I would have found it pretty hard to respond to it. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) for intervening, because I want to pay tribute to him, too, in the course of all this. Of course, ID cards were his child. He argued them through Cabinet and, as he said in his speech, he had all sorts of opposition and he fought his corner. However, he has left the Labour party a dreadful legacy. I hope that it can join the rest of us-where it should be-in ensuring that we can continue to hold this Conservative Government to account.
	It was great when the Conservatives were in opposition-of course they were against the anti-civil libertarian agenda-but we will have to watch them like hawks in government, and we need the Labour party on board for that task. We need the Labour party to help to hold the Conservatives to account, because I have a sneaking suspicion that once they have had a good start and once they have their feet under the table, they will start to consider several issues and the old Conservatives will start to come back. We will start to see that move towards the authoritarianism that was a trademark of so many previous Governments. I appeal to the Labour party to help us to hold the Government to account and to get rid of the opposition to this. They should say, "Good riddance" and be thankful that we have got rid of ID cards.
	This runs through the whole history of Labour and ID cards. We never even knew what they were for-that was the great thing. We did not know what they were supposed to achieve. When the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough introduced them-he can correct me if I get this wrong-his intention was that there would be a fully compulsory scheme, so that everybody in the UK would have to hold an ID card. That, I believe, was his intention and that was what he wanted to try to deliver. As he tried to get the scheme through, the opposition started to kick in. Opposition to the idea seemed to be growing and growing, so we saw the reasons behind ID cards changing. The scheme changed into a voluntary scheme that not only would keep us safe but could be used to make sure that we could buy services. I believe that being able to play the lottery was one of the great reasons we were given to have an ID card. They became not so much ID cards as super cards that would solve all society's ills.

David Blunkett: I promise not to divert us from the issue, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not remember anyone on our side-certainly not me-talking about being able to use the lottery.

Pete Wishart: It might not have been the right hon. Gentleman who said that and I am sorry if I have characterised him in that way. I believe that his true intention was to have everyone signed up to a mandatory ID card; that was the first attempt and agenda of the Labour party when it introduced the idea. All the way through the difficult conception and birth of the ID card, there was no real consistency in the way in which Labour tried to get it through. That has been the difficulty throughout the whole experience.
	Labour's opposition to the Bill has been woeful-not knowing whether to support it or not and making some caustic comments about compensation; that has been its attitude-but there is light at the end of the tunnel. According to all the opinion polls, it looks as though the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) might win the Labour leadership election and he has said that ID cards were a step too far. He talks about the fact that they were not a good idea and says that there should be no further backing for them. Perhaps we will start to get the Labour party back on board; I certainly hope so.
	Today has been a thoroughly good day. I congratulate the Minister on taking the Bill through in his usual manner-with good grace and listening to some of the arguments and representations-and on a job well done. This day is the end of ID cards, and thank goodness for that. Good riddance to them and let us hope that we never see their likes again.

Meg Hillier: The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) has done exactly as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) said and has begun to believe his own rhetoric, entertaining though it was to listen to. It might be helpful if I explain to him and to the rest of the House the position of the official Opposition. I remind the House that although many things are said in election campaigns, what happens in reality when people have power is often very different. We have a good example of that in front of us in the form of the coalition Government, but I shall say no more on that.
	Her Majesty's Opposition recognise the Government's clear position and the reality of the maths. We know that both parties were elected on manifestos to get rid of ID cards and that the Bill is the fruition of what is a fairly rare point of agreement. Indeed, only on Monday the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), was speaking with enthusiasm about her position when she was in opposition and had to be quickly reminded of something by her Parliamentary Private Secretary, who passed her a note. She then swiftly began to read an alternative position from the coalition agreement, so we know that sometimes things are said but then change. However, the reality is that both parties agreed on this point and we recognise that that gives the Government a mandate. We are not here to oppose for the sake of opposition, but we feel that the Bill sweeps aside many important things.
	On Second Reading, the Minister said that the Bill is symbolic-and it is for him and his Government. It is also ideologically based and very rushed. Had he been in his Department a bit longer and had other Ministers in that Department and in government thought things through, they might rue the day they swept away the baby with the bathwater. The Bill has the serious consequence of removing the option to have fingerprints in passports, which the identity register allowed. That would have updated the passport database to allow for the very secure retention of that important biometric.
	The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire is very exercised about data being held by the state. I am sure that he must have a passport for travel and I wonder whether he has ever given a moment's thought to where passport information is held. As I reminded members of the public and others up and down the country during many of my roadshows, visits and talks about this issue over three years, 80% of us have a passport and that information is held securely. We have a good Passport Service, but what we proposed was a more secure approach. I shall not dwell on what we could have done or what we would do differently again, but it is an important principle of the Opposition that the passport should be secure not only now but in future. The new design for a more secure physical passport that I signed off earlier in the year has been unveiled and produced in the Blaydon constituency. We wanted greater security with fingerprinting, but the Government have effectively abandoned that.
	Interestingly, the Bill sets the tone for the way in which the Government wish to work. It was brought forward in quite a rush. We finally managed today to extract from the Government the fact that there was no consultation on the Bill, so mentions in manifestos and on individuals' blogs seem to be the way in which the Government choose to consult. We also know that the Bill's impact assessment was inadequate, which is sad, given that one of the Ministers responsible for the Bill is also the Minister for Equalities. Labour Members will watch closely to ensure that such sloppiness does not take place in the future, and I hope that Ministers acknowledge that they have a responsibility to do their jobs thoroughly and properly.
	We look forward to hearing more about the transgender issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling). We tried to put in place something that would make the best of a bad job in this regard, but the Government removed that option overnight without any recognition of that fact. No full solution is forthcoming, so we ask the Government to report to Parliament as progress is made on the issue. I ask the Minister with responsibility for passports to write to me around Christmas or in January to let me know what progress has been made, and to place a copy of the letter in the Library. I have been contacted by many people who would be grateful for such information. A lot of them do not have voices of their own, but they will be looking closely at how the House scrutinises the issue and have made it clear that they want to know what is going on.
	The Bill prevents the Government from collecting and storing fingerprints, which means that the British passport will fall behind international standards relatively quickly, although international passports improve over years. Over time, British citizens will be forced to pay for visas when they make certain international visits. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have indicated that they favour biometrics on passports and increasing passport security, so I wonder whether the Bill has been fully squared in government. We hear that the Government are halting the use of fingerprints, but we do not know for how long. I hope that they will consider putting that back on the table because we all have a genuine interest in ensuring that the British public are safe when they travel and that our identity documents are as secure as possible. The use of fingerprints also helps to tackle identity fraud because many criminals have multiple identities, yet fingerprints are one of the surest ways of prevention.
	I know that Ministers take seriously the Home Office's responsibility to do everything in its power to protect people-that is the Department's raison d'être-but the Bill throws out the baby with the bathwater. The Opposition would revisit the issue of biometrics on passports, even though I give no commitment about what we would do on identity cards, given that we will shortly be under new leadership. However, if we were to get into power in five years' time, we would be in a different place than if we were not to get into power-heaven forefend-for 10 years. We recognise that we will have to deal with the landscape that we face at the time. I would hope that that landscape would involve fingerprints for passports, but the Bill does not make that look likely.
	The Bill's refusal of any recompense to those who bought cards in good faith is mean-spirited, as is the fact that we have had no opportunity to press for refunds, which was the reason why some of the new clauses that we tabled were complex. As I said, no proper account was taken of the equalities impact. If I was to be particularly mean, I would suggest that the mean-spirited nature of the Bill is a metaphor for the Government as we approach tough spending decisions.
	I thank hon. Members who have played an important part in developing our policy and supporting my Front-Bench role. The Opposition's redoubtable team has mostly consisted of newly elected Back Benchers, who have been committed to addressing the Bill. I put on record my thanks to the former right hon. Members for Redditch, for Norwich South and for Airdrie and Shotts, the last of whom will no doubt give the Bill a run for its money in the other place, as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough. It is rare that a junior Front-Bench spokesman has such support from a series of former Home Secretaries, but they have been incredibly supportive and helpful.
	We are not yet dancing on the grave of identity cards. I live in hope that the Government will see the error of their ways and that, despite this Bill, they will revisit the issue of passport biometrics. I look forward to seeing how the Bill progresses in the Lords.
	 Question put and agreed  to .
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

PETITION
	 — 
	Dolphins (Japan)

Tony Cunningham: My constituent, Alice Cheney, from Great Clifton near Workington, brought me this petition because she feels strongly that there is a need to raise awareness both nationally and internationally about the slaughter of thousands, if not tens of thousands, of dolphins each year in the waters around Japan. She notes that it is estimated that some 23,000 dolphins are slaughtered each year just in the area of Taijii. She is also concerned that the dolphin meat produced after the slaughter is contaminated. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take steps to raise awareness of the slaughter of dolphins and urges the Foreign Secretary to call on the Japanese Government to prevent the distribution of contaminated dolphin meat.
	 Following is the full text of the petition:
	 [The Petition of residents of Workington,
	 Declares that the petitioners believe that there is a need to raise awareness both nationally and internationally about the slaughter of thousands of dolphins each year in the waters around Japan; notes that it is estimated that some 23,000 dolphins are slaughtered each year in the area of Taijii; further declares that the petitioners believe that there is a need to raise awareness for the majority of Japanese citizens, who are unaware that this is going on in their country; and notes that the petitioners believe that the dolphin meat which is highly contaminated is being distributed to an unaware Japanese public protected by a government that knows the dangers of this practice and the risks to health it poses.
	 The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take steps to raise awareness of the slaughter of dolphins and urges the Foreign Secretary to call on the Japanese Government to prevent the distribution of contaminated dolphin meat.
	 And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
	[P000860]

MILITARY AVIATION INDUSTRY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Jeremy Wright.)

Mark Menzies: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for granting me the time and the opportunity to hold my first Adjournment debate. It may be my first Adjournment debate, but the topic is one on which I have spoken many times, both in the House and locally in the constituency. It is no less a subject than the future of UK military aircraft production.
	The debate could not be more timely. Only last week, unfortunately, BAE Systems, which has its military headquarters in Warton in my constituency, announced potentially 1,000 job losses. I know that BAE Systems and the trade unions are working hard to minimise that eventual figure, but it serves as timely notice to us that the issue is not one of numbers or technology. It concerns people's lives, jobs and the UK maintaining a sovereign capability in an area in which we are currently world leaders.
	I refer to comments made by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer shortly after the election, when they said that one of the most important things that we had to do as a nation was to rebalance the economy, and rebalancing the economy was about being less reliant on services and moving on to manufacturing. It was about jobs being in the north rather in than the south. It was about jobs with high export potential that earned serious money for this country. I can think of no other sector that ticks all those boxes more than the UK military aircraft division.
	I know that you, Mr Evans, and your fellow Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr Hoyle), are precluded from taking part in the debate by the office that you hold, but that both of you have a long-standing record as doughty defenders of the UK military aircraft sector.
	In the north-west the industry is the engine room of the entire regional economy. From Warton, Samlesbury and the other plants that we have, tens of thousands of component suppliers and many, many small shops and taxi firms gain a living from the work that is done there.
	In this debate I shall focus on a few key areas-the future of the Typhoon programme, the exports that we can potentially derive from that, and the unmanned aircraft programme which, I am proud to say, is being developed at Warton. There are some Members in the House who say that we should not be concerned about having a UK military aircraft capability, that sovereign capability was for yesteryear, and that we should be buying off the shelf. What they seem to forget is that the UK is the shelf. We are world leaders in most of this technology. When it comes to unmanned aircraft, the work is not done in the United States. They are not the world leaders, they are not at the cutting edge and they do not have the talented people. The work is done here in the United Kingdom-in the north-west, in Lancashire, in Warton and in Samlesbury. That is where the talent lies, and those are the people whom I am here to represent this evening.
	I therefore call on the Minister, when he makes his remarks, to reflect on the importance of the future of the unmanned aircraft industry to this country, because it is not just an industry that we lead, but one of huge potential growth both in the realm of military technology and for civilian use. We live in an unstable world, and as part of the security and strategic defence review we have considered all sorts of threats. They include an increased risk of piracy, the need to defend key oil installations and tackling human trafficking. Unmanned aircraft in their various forms are a fantastic way of including flexibility in one's military capability in order to address a number of those risks. Aircraft such as HERTI are flexible enough to allow civilian operators to take on some of those roles, leading to less reliance on Governments.
	Typhoon, or the Eurofighter as some people may know it, is primarily built at Warton, but work has also been done at Samlesbury, and there has been talk recently about the importance of tranche 3B and why it is crucial for the RAF to place orders. I appreciate that when it comes to the lack of money in the defence budget, we are in unprecedented times, and I know that the Minister has to take some incredibly difficult decisions. Members will not like some of those decisions, but I believe that tranche 3B is very important and Typhoon is a first-class aircraft, so I make an appeal to him once again. When he looks at it, he should do everything that he can to ensure that there is the potential in the RAF for 3B.
	However, we have to look beyond 3B, because the real prize is in Typhoon's export potential, because that is where the jobs, the foreign currency and the futures of people in my constituency will lie. Many Members will be familiar with the export orders that have been placed with Saudi Arabia and BAE Systems' work in that country and throughout the middle east, but I call upon the Government to continue that excellent work and gradually drive forward the work of BAE Systems and its work force in securing those export orders. I refer the Minister to the Prime Minister's recent visit to India, where we secured a substantial order for Hawk jets, because I do not believe that BAE Systems, great though it is, could have achieved that without significant Government help at the highest level.

Graham Jones: I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. Does he agree that UK defence contracts with BAE Systems also importantly enhance our export capability, and that any reduction in UK defence contract spending will affect our capacity to export?

Mark Menzies: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. We cannot be totally reliant on exports, because, if the RAF buys and uses something, that is a more powerful pitch than any sales brochure, so we have to ensure that the UK armed forces continue to place significant orders for UK military aircraft. I agree that exports are not the only solution, but, in a tough economic climate, we need to invest a considerable amount of energy in securing such exports.
	I say to the Minister, please let us not be shy about getting behind BAE Systems when securing exports. The French are not shy, the Americans wheel out Barack Obama and the Russians wheel out Vladimir Putin. So, let us leave no stone unturned and use every weapon in our armoury to ensure that the United Kingdom is out there putting forward what I passionately believe to be a world-class product built by a world-class work force, securing defence orders for this country and vast amounts of foreign currency potential. I call upon the Minister to support me in that.
	We have 6,500 people working at Warton and about 5,000 at Samlesbury, but it is not just about numbers-it is about the quality of those jobs. Two hundred apprentices are currently going through BAE Systems military aircraft division.

Andrew Griffiths: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a huge impact in terms of knowledge and skills that are transferable throughout manufacturing as a result of the aerospace industry, that many of the techniques and technological advances that are developed feed through into manufacturing in the UK generally, and that having a thriving, successful aerospace industry will have a huge impact on British manufacturing?

Mark Menzies: My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. He is on the record as speaking up for jobs and skills in this country.
	A layman could be accused of thinking of the jobs at Warton as being about metal-bashing and nuts and bolts, but far from it. We are talking about people who are at the cutting edge of design and computer technology-the sorts of things that I, as a mere Member of Parliament, struggle to get my head around. They are absolute world leaders in their field, and they are our people-Lancashire people, on the whole. They have spent their whole lives honing their skills at Warton-they were not invented: they were grown. We need to recognise the contribution that those skills make to the economy, as well as their transferable nature and the fact that many component manufacturers can look to the military aircraft division and take some of the lessons from that sector to use in their own sectors.

Gordon Birtwistle: Does my hon. Friend accept that not only the people at Warton and Samlesbury are involved in this, but the people at Rolls-Royce who develop and build the engines and avionics? In making his comments on the Eurofighter, would he like to include the F-35, which is being developed, alongside in the USA, at Samlesbury and at Warton? It would be helpful if my hon. Friend the Minister, or even the Prime Minister, could get some clarity from the American Administration on how they intend to progress development of the engine for the F-35. That would create thousands of jobs, because that aeroplane is needed in vast quantities by the USA. Those are the very products that are being built in the UK, at Rolls-Royce and in Samlesbury, for the new F-35 fighter.

Mark Menzies: I wholeheartedly endorse what my hon. Friend has said about the F-35. Indeed, we are very lucky this evening to be joined by members of the trade union movement from Samlesbury who are in the Public Gallery. Before I came into the Chamber, I was reminded of the importance of the F-35. Were I to forget to mention it, I would have very much failed in my duty to represent their wishes.

Graham Jones: One of the worries is that if the Eurofighter is withdrawn to a significant extent from Samlesbury, we run the risk of part of the development of the F-35 being withdrawn to the United States. There is always a risk, especially with high unemployment in the US, that the Americans will be looking to US manufacturing to take on what are essentially US jobs. The Eurofighter keeps that anchor in the UK and in Lancashire.

Mark Menzies: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting concern. However, I am sure, from my conversations with BAE Systems, that the nature of the contract is robust enough, and the commitments from this Government are clear enough, that there will be a good future at Samlesbury. The Minister is bound by a difficulty in being able to give details about the F-35, but any that he can provide will be incredibly welcome.
	I want to be generous in giving others time, because I know that colleagues wish to make some points. My final point is that the future of the UK military aircraft division, which is based at Warton but also has a significant element at Samlesbury, is not just about the regional economy of the north-west, or about jobs, vital though those matters are. It is about the UK being serious about ever again being able to play a role through a strategic, sovereign capability to manufacture our own aircraft, own our own technology, develop our own high-tech skills base and continue to be a world leader in what we do. It is also fundamental to achieving the objective of rebalancing the economy that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have set out. If we fail to take that into account and to get behind the UK military aircraft sector, not only will the north-west lose out but the entire UK economy will be much the poorer. I ask the Minister to get behind exports, do what he can for the future of the F-35 and the Typhoon, and let us really make a difference.

Mark Hendrick: I congratulate my neighbour, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies), on securing the debate. I reiterate his point that I am sure your fellow Deputy Speakers would have loved to speak in the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. Indeed, I am sure that you would have been keen to take part as well, given the constituency interest.
	Aerospace is an industry that touches every part of the UK economy, including the south-west, but nowhere more than the north-west. We in the north-west are extremely concerned about the job losses that will almost definitely occur there in the coming months, particularly at Samlesbury and Warton. We know that 149 jobs are likely to go at the former and 298 at the latter. Having spoken to both management and the unions, we are aware of the reduction in work on Airbus components at Samlesbury. I am sure that that matter also affects your constituents at Filton, Madam Deputy Speaker. We know about the valuable work on the Tornado, the Harrier and the Hawk that has taken place at Warton in the past. I will be honest in saying that the announcements about reductions in the Tornado and Harrier fleets were made before the general election, but we are also concerned about future plans. I shall touch on that later.
	The work force have been given something like 90 days to be consulted by the management on jobs. Hundreds of jobs were lost in the industry last year, including at the Warton and Samlesbury plants. We hoped that there would then be a tailing-off of job losses, and I am angry that they are continuing and are likely to continue further as a result of the Government's strategic defence review.
	We must attempt to minimise job losses where possible. I do not want anybody from either plant to be made compulsorily redundant. However, I understand that they just about scraped through last year with voluntary redundancies, so it will be much more difficult this year. Many workers there who are friends of mine, and their families, are concerned about their economic future and their careers, having spent decades at the two plants that are going under.
	It is particularly heartbreaking that many skilled manufacturing jobs have gone abroad over the past five decades, especially with the growth of the European Community, now the European Union, and globalisation. The north-west is proud that we still have a much higher percentage of the population engaged in manufacturing than elsewhere, and in the Preston and central Lancashire area the percentage is the highest in the country. That is under threat now.
	We have been making aircraft in the Preston area for more than 100 years, and aircraft that fought in both world wars were built in and around my constituency. They used to be built to fight against countries such as Germany. We now build aircraft in co-operation with Germany. Europe has been at peace for decades and we want that to continue. Indeed, we want peace on a global scale, but while there is no guarantee of that, defence equipment will always be needed, and it must be manufactured. This country is particularly good at that and has an extremely high technological base.
	I trained as an electronics engineer and computer scientist. I worked in those jobs in my professional life in both the public and the private sectors before entering politics. As the hon. Member for Fylde said, engineering is not about metal-bashing. Of course, many skills, including metal-bashing, have survived for generations, but many of the skills that are coming on stream are highly technical and advanced, particularly in computer-aided design, and we are the envy of the world in many areas of manufacturing. We lead the world in stealth technology-I have seen the world-beating stealth technology manufactured at Warton-and are ahead of the Americans, the Israelis and the French. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the unmanned vehicles that we are developing.
	We have already lost many manufacturing industries to countries such as Germany, Japan and China, particularly in the consumer electronics field, but one area in which we excel is the manufacture of defence equipment. We need that to continue, which is why we should do everything in our power to protect jobs and the high-tech industries such as those in the north-west.

Andrew Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the loss of manufacturing jobs overseas. Does he agree that in 13 years under the previous Government, there was an unprecedented collapse in manufacturing in this country, when it declined three times faster than under Margaret Thatcher?

Mark Hendrick: I accept that there has been a loss of jobs in manufacturing, but that trend has continued since the 1960s under Governments of both persuasions. I say that as an engineer rather than as a politician. As technology advances, computers can do many jobs that humans used to do, and a section of an aircraft that used to be made of 100 parts can now be made of two or three. I would not try to be party political on manufacturing. Nobody did more to defend jobs than the previous Labour Government. Every contract that could be given to British Aerospace, which is now called BAE Systems, was given to it, and order books were full. We were looking forward to decades of further production at the company, so we will not take any lessons from the Conservatives.

John Woodcock: My hon. Friend's point about general manufacturing is important, but does he agree that defence industry manufacturing has been completely different from much of the rest of the picture? Defence manufacturing has been a strength in the past 10 years, especially given the number of jobs that have been created. The danger is that we could lose capacity over the next decade and the capability to lead the world in a range of areas, including, of course, shipbuilding.

Mark Hendrick: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We are not here to talk about aircraft carriers, but they are important to the future of both Warton and Samlesbury. Manufacturing the two aircraft carriers in places such as Barrow would support many industries in the north and north-west, but they are under consideration in the strategic defence review. Bluntly, if the carriers do not go ahead, the need for the aircraft to go on them will be called into question, as will our share of the F-35 joint strike fighter programme. We are currently guaranteed 12 to 15% of those contracts with Lockheed Martin. The Government are sailing close to the wind when it comes to maintaining our share of that work unless a commitment is made to the aircraft carriers.
	We are playing for high stakes, because at threat is the future of Britain as a defence manufacturing nation. We have lost a lot of consumer manufacturing to the likes of Germany, Japan and China, and it is essential that we maintain our expertise and technological base in defence manufacturing. Otherwise, not only will the jobs and livelihoods of people in the north-west economy suffer, but the nation will suffer, because we will not punch the same weight or have the same GDP. We will be a much poorer nation as a result. Aerospace is the jewel in the north-west's economic crown.
	On the strategic defence review, the Typhoon programme is extremely important. Exports are important, as is take-up by the four partner nations in that programme. Before the general election, I was disappointed to see the Liberal Democrats make it plain that they would not continue tranche 3B of the Eurofighter Typhoon, against the wishes of many in the north-west. It is a disgrace that so many Liberal Democrats can take a view that threatens so many jobs in the north-west, especially when so many were silent on the issue during the election, especially my opponent in Preston. The Labour Government signed up to tranche 3A, so we showed our commitment, and I call on the Government to show their commitment not only to Typhoon, but to the aircraft carriers, the design and preparation for which are well under way.
	The skills of a generation of the work force at Warton and Samlesbury will be put at risk. Last year, 200 jobs went at Samlesbury, leaving only 4,200 jobs. The hon. Member for Fylde mentioned the figure of 5,000, but 4,200 is the actual figure-a loss of more than 25%. The situation is similar at Warton. I do not want to see anyone lose their job, but it is surprising that executive jobs have not been greatly affected. Only one executive job will be lost over both sites, which seems unbalanced.
	The announcement that 1,000 jobs will be lost across the country in BAE Systems is a tragedy, but I shudder to think what the strategic defence review will reveal after November when it is completed. That announcement may be just the tip of the iceberg of job losses, and the Government will rue the day if they make significant cuts and these major programmes disappear, as those decisions will be reflected at the ballot box at the next general election.

Paul Maynard: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) on securing this debate. Unlike the hon. Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick), I do not intend to tempt the Minister to prejudge the outcome of the strategic defence review, nor will I engage in self-indulgent scaremongering about possible outcomes. There are more than enough armchair generals, bath-tub admirals and heaven knows who else opining in the letters columns of the national press about what form the future force configuration should take, and we do not need to debate that tonight.

Mark Hendrick: I do not want to hog the debate, as I have already spoken at length but the hon. Gentleman will recognise that before the general election we made it plain that we would cut the deficit by 50% over four years. With a party now in government saying it will attempt to cut the deficit totally in five years, hon. Members can draw their own conclusions.

Paul Maynard: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but people's jobs depend on decisions being made now, and I do not intend to engage in self-indulgent scaremongering. He may wish to do so on behalf of his constituents, to whom he is responsible, but I do not intend to adopt a similar position.

John Woodcock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Paul Maynard: No, because I have a number of things I want to say.
	We are here to discuss the UK military aviation industry, not the outcomes of the strategic defence review. There are two important aspects to consider. First, there are the potential changes to UK Government orders that we do not know about, and which we will not find out about tonight, however much Opposition Members may wish otherwise. I do not expect that, and I am sure that many other Conservative Members do not expect it either. However, we can discuss the important steps taken by the Government to promote exports. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) discuss the need to improve exports. The hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) said it was no substitute for investment by the UK Government. We had 13 years of a Labour Government who failed to take seriously the promotion of UK exports. I heard it time and time again, even from active trade unionists, that BAE Systems-

Andrew Percy: Does my hon. Friend think that the absence of the Opposition Front-Bench team is a further sign of the importance they place on this matter?

Dawn Primarolo: Order. This is an Adjournment debate, so the hon. Gentleman's point is not relevant. I hope that Members will return to the aviation industry.

Paul Maynard: Export industry is crucial, and improved Government support for it-

John Woodcock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Paul Maynard: No, I am not prepared to give way.

John Woodcock: The hon. Gentleman gave way to his hon. Friend just now.

Paul Maynard: No, I am sorry. I am not prepared to give way.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde said, a recent trip to India resulted in a much improved Hawk order. However, I would like to make one observation to the Minister that I hope he will bear in mind. There is no finer advertisement for the British military aviation industry than the Red Arrows. I hope that he will bear that in mind when he is considering the wider issues of the strategic defence review.
	Tonight's debate should not be about BAE Systems only. I realise it is a major player in the UK military aviation industry, but it is not the sole player. In the north-west, we have the North West Aerospace Alliance, which has made an enormous effort to develop a world-class supply chain that includes not just BAE Systems-

Graham Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Paul Maynard: If I must.

Graham Jones: Put simply, if the RAF or the British Government will not buy Typhoons, why should any other country? It is a really poor advert. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the strength of our exports will come from our confidence in our own products and UK manufacturing base? He seems to be arguing the opposite, which I do not fully understand. That an important point that he needs to focus on-

Dawn Primarolo: Order. This is an Adjournment debate, which is going a little longer tonight because of the time. The debate is in the name of the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies).  [Interruption.] Will the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) please resume his seat while I am on my feet? Thank you. Interventions are to be brief. It is a Back-Bench debate and should refer to the title and subject of the debate. If Members want to speak, they should stand and hope they get in.

Paul Maynard: I appreciate your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I want to talk about the importance of sovereign capability in terms of our military aviation industry. Many people might regard the notion of sovereign capability as something nostalgic. At the moment, we are celebrating the 70th anniversary of the battle of Britain, and many people are saying how fortunate we were in those days to be able to generate our own aircraft, make them within our own shores and defend our shores against our enemies, and that we should continue that in the future. I would be cautious, however, about basing any arguments for sovereign capability on nostalgia, tempting as that might be, but sovereign capability matters. It is an important concept that the Government have to buy into, because we do not know what is around the corner or what the future holds. We do not know whether we can rely on those on whom we have relied in the past. The world is full of unknowns, and sovereign capability is our sole protection from them.
	I therefore ask the Government to consider carefully the ways in which they can support sovereign capability, and to look beyond defining it simply in terms of whether shipyard X or aircraft factory Y remains open. With regard to military aviation, I ask the Minister to consider how the Government can use some of the things that they are already doing to protect sovereign capability, in particular through the important changes being made with the introduction of local enterprise partnerships. It is important that the Ministry of Defence speak to other Departments to consider how the newly emerging LEPs can best be allocated to strategic areas, which can then underpin particular subsections of the defence industry. A good example would be the application by Blackpool, Fylde and Wyre to have a local enterprise partnership focusing on the aeronautical supply chain, which I discussed earlier. That is one way in which Government innovation can help to support sovereign capability without having to invest just to keep things open.

David Morris: One thing that must also be considered when talking about the area of north-west England for which my hon. Friend is a Member-quite a few Members are from there-is that places such as Samlesbury and Warton form an area of excellence that is the silicon valley, as it were, of the defence aviation industry. We have only to look back at what happened in the 1960s when the Wilson Government cut the TSR2. We had a world-beating product, but it was shredded because of what was happening at the time in the political framework. My hon. Friend is correct about the allocation of funding. We have to preserve not just the jobs, but the scientific-

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I said just a moment ago that interventions needed to be brief. That is a general rule of the House. The hon. Gentleman should not use the opportunity of an intervention to make a speech. I am sure that his hon. Friend has got the gist of his point now.

Paul Maynard: I agree with it fully, so I thank my hon. Friend for his comments.
	The other Department that I would like the Minister to talk to is the Department for Education. It is a common complaint across Government as a whole that science education is somehow in decline. When I was fortunate enough to tour BAE Systems in Warton, I saw many highly skilled people who had engaged in scientific educational training. They had their physics and their chemistry: they knew what they were doing when it came to science. That is one important reason for ensuring that we emphasise why more students should get science-based qualifications that lead to careers in important defence-based industries-in particular military aviation-and underpin the protection of our sovereign capability.
	I hope that the Minister will take both those ideas away and do something with them. Sovereign capability matters. It needs to be more than just a phrase that gets deployed in debates such as this, and we need to do more than depend on nostalgia to underpin it. I hope that he will consider that. We have something that we can be enormously proud of in the UK military aviation industry but, like anything, it must be constantly burnished and kept up to scratch. I hope that the Minister will tell us how he intends to do that when he responds to this debate.

John Woodcock: I had not originally intended to speak in this debate. I will try to make my contribution brief, but it is important to make a contribution, in part to correct some of the misconceptions spread by the previous speech and, to an extent, by previous interventions.
	First, I agree with the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) on sovereign capability. It is important that we maintain that in the years ahead. The aviation industry in the north-west offers prime examples of the ways in which we have been able to lead the world in that regard, and it is vital that we continue to do so. I hope that the Minister will bear this in mind as we approach at breakneck speed the conclusions of the strategic defence and security review.
	Hon. Members on both sides of the House should support the Government's drive to improve the standing of our exports. We can sustain many jobs by increasing our exports, not only in the aviation industry in the north-west but right across the defence industry. We can also improve the UK's standing in the world, and our military and diplomatic influences, by doing so. Let us not pretend, however, that the situation is dire at the moment, or that the previous Labour Government ran us into the ground. I am sure that the Minister is aware-although I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys is-that this country punches roughly three times above its natural weight in its exports industry. We should be proud of that, and the kind of partisan remarks that the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys has just made do the defence industry and those who work in it a disservice.
	I want the Typhoon to play an important part in the areas that I have just mentioned, and in sustaining the economy. It will do so, however, only if we take a mature attitude to exports and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) said, if we buy this kit ourselves. The first question that any foreign Government will ask when we rock up at their door and try to sell them this kit or anything else is, "Are you using it yourself?" If we are not, why on earth should they buy it? I very much hope that the laudable rhetoric that is coming from the Government at the moment will be sustained by a proper strategy that will enable us to acquire this kit and help us to export it overseas.
	I want to mention scaremongering in regard to jobs. There is an important role for Members of Parliament in standing up for employment in their constituencies and their regions, and I think that many hon. Members on the other side of the House get that. I hope that the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys understands it as well. It is not dishonourable to speak up for the potential industrial consequences of the decisions that are about to be made. I am a member of the cross-party Defence Committee, which has just concluded that some of those decisions could put at risk our long-term security, as well as our defence industry and the industrial base that it sustains.

Graham Jones: I note that, yesterday, the Minister said that the UK was the second most successful exporter of defence products in 2009, with orders worth more than £7 billion. Would my hon. Friend like to comment on that?

John Woodcock: My hon. Friend provides evidence for what I was saying earlier. We are a successful country, but we want to become even more successful. We shall need to do that in an environment that is going to be very tough in the years ahead. Other counties are retrenching their budgets just as we are, but it is important that we take a mature attitude to this.
	Returning to my point about jobs and about the industrial base that the defence industry sustains, I wonder whether the Minister and the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys are aware of the evidence that the chief executive of BAE Systems and other senior members of the defence industry gave to the Defence Committee last week. They pointed out that we are on the verge of decisions that we risk getting wrong. Alarm was expressed within the industry among the speakers who gave evidence to the Defence Committee last week. If we get this wrong, they said, we could lose our capability in the north-west-in aviation, shipbuilding and right across the piece-in a way that will have devastating consequences for employment. If in five or 10 years' time, we decide that we need this capability, we will find that the employment base needed to sustain it has gone-never to return. If the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys believes that those people were scaremongering when they said that, I hope he will stand up and make his view clear. I certainly do not think that they were, as this is a serious issue that will have to be dealt with.
	In conclusion, it is so important to sustain capacity at Samlesbury and Warton-for the reasons I have just set out, but additionally because if the north-west takes the right decisions and the Government support it, and developing a defence and industrial policy following the strategic defence review will be critical-that could strengthen and augment its position as playing a leading part in the country and the world in producing world-class industrial products to serve our armed forces here and to export across the globe. The decisions made now and in the coming weeks and months will be critical.

Andrew Stephenson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) on securing this important debate. I agree with everything he said; I know he has worked tirelessly on this issue for many months. I am also pleased that the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) struck a slightly more positive note. I do not think that all is doom and gloom; we should celebrate the success stories as well, so I am grateful that some Members have reflected that.
	I shall start by focusing on some of the positives in the north-west of England. The aerospace sector there has long been recognised as one of Europe's leading industrial clusters and as a model for development within the aerospace and other industries. In my Pendle constituency, a number of significant firms are dependent on the aviation industry and on military contracts in particular.
	As recently as Defence questions on Monday this week, I raised the importance of military aviation. I was reassured by what the Minister had to say. I pointed out to him that on the previous Saturday I had visited Euravia, a company that repairs and overhauls aircraft engines; it is located in Kelbrook in my constituency. I was there to attend the event at which the company was presented with the Queen's award for enterprise in the international trade category. Despite the recession, that firm had seen a growth in orders and was significantly increasing its overseas trade, starting to explore new and exciting opportunities. I believe that such businesses are leading the way in showing how other firms in the aerospace sector should behave-developing the skills of their workers, attaining an international reputation for high standards and good customer service, and always looking for new contracts abroad in case contracts in the UK dry up.
	In underlining the importance of the aviation industry to my constituency, I point out that Rolls-Royce is the largest employer, with more than 1,000 workers in Barnoldswick producing engine fan blades. I was particularly delighted to have been able to take my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to visit Rolls-Royce prior to the election; I know that he is acutely aware of the importance of the aviation industry in Lancashire. I find it encouraging that in recent months Rolls-Royce has announced a string of deals, including one worth £1.1 billion at the Farnborough airshow. In July, the company unveiled detailed plans for a new £30 million aerodrome at its site in my constituency. This extension of the current site is where it will build fan blades for the F-35 joint strike fighter, which colleagues mentioned earlier in the debate. The extension will create about 100 new jobs in my constituency, although that will depend on approval from the President of the United States, Barack Obama, for the Rolls-Royce F-35 engine.
	I know that the Government have already been working closely with Rolls-Royce to help it to secure more business. I was particularly pleased to see bosses from Rolls-Royce and BAE Systems accompanying the Prime Minister on his recent visit to India. I really do see aviation exports as key, and I am therefore delighted that unlike Ministers in the last Government, Ministers in the present Government are proactively helping our businesses to win contracts abroad.

Graham Jones: I question that last point. All the previous tranches, up to 3A, went through under a Labour Government, but tranche 3B, on which many Members are now focusing, is in doubt under the coalition Government. How can the hon. Gentleman justify his comment, given that all the previous contracts were honoured by the Labour Government, whereas the new Government are considering reviewing and perhaps cutting a future contract, 3B?

Andrew Stephenson: I am happy to justify my comment by asking how the hon. Gentleman justifies the Labour Government's huge overspends, and the massive deficit that they built up when their expenditure was out of control. Clearly they should have got spending under control, and should have conducted a strategic defence review instead of delaying the pain until now.
	The importance of big aerospace contractors such as Rolls-Royce and BAE Systems to Pendle, Lancashire and the United Kingdom economy should not be underestimated. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) pointed out, there is a significant number of subcontractors and support companies. The average job in aerospace contributes £75,000 gross value added to the economy, and the figure rises to £115,000 at BAE Systems, compared to only about £15,000 gross value added per job in other sectors in Lancashire. I have noticed when I have spoken to business men in my constituency how many of them started off as apprentices at either BAE Systems or Rolls-Royce.
	Many Opposition Members have expressed concern about the potential impact of the strategic defence and security review on the military aviation industry. We have already had a debate today about who has been fuelling scare stories in the press. I believe that hon. Members have a responsibility not to fuel scare stories: I do not think that they do anything for workers' morale. I suggest, however, that the biggest risk to our military aviation is not the strategic defence and security review, but the muddled and incoherent programme left by the last Government.
	Before Opposition Members lecture the coalition Government on the financial implications of reviewing certain defence contracts, they should remember that with a defence budget of some £35 billion a year, they left behind an overspend in the equipment programme that will amount to £38 billion by 2020. That is what we must deal with now, and that is why we are carrying out a full review of all the current contracts.
	I used my maiden speech to explain the need for us to build a high-skilled economy, and I specifically mentioned the importance of the aviation industry. So far I have been very encouraged by the measures that Ministers have taken to support military aviation, but I urge them to do even more to support that vital sector.

Andrew Percy: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) on securing what has turned out to be a longer debate than we might have expected. It has given many more Members a chance to make speeches, some more political than others.
	I want to break the Lancashire stranglehold on the debate-or rather the north-western stranglehold. I used to teach geography too, so I apologise to the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock). My constituency has been very much affected by the proposal for job losses at the BAE Systems site at Brough. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) have been engaged in cross-party work in relation to that proposal, and over the past few years they have also worked closely together to help to secure contracts for the continuation of the site.
	The BAE Systems site at Brough has a huge impact on our area. In recent years we have struggled in respect of manufacturing jobs, as has the rest of the country, and the continuation of the Brough site is greatly valued by local people. It gives young people in the area some aspiration that they might have a future job in manufacturing. I know all about that. I grew up in the area, attending a comprehensive school in Hull, and one of the most secure prospects we had was the possibility of going into apprenticeships at either BAE Systems at Brough or BP at Saltend.
	I cannot over-emphasise the value of BAE Systems and the Brough site to our local economy and education facilities. It is heavily involved in local schools in my constituency and across the East Riding, and probably beyond that. Its educational roadshow is run from Brough and it has thus far received about 5,000 young people from the ages of nine to 13, bringing them on to the site to see what the possibilities for them there might be, and perhaps sparking an interest in manufacturing and in pursuing that interest in their own educational futures. BAE Systems is also heavily involved with the local secondary schools and every year provides a number of apprenticeships to local schools. All that is a success story for our region, so I do not want anybody to leave this debate with any impression other than that the existence of the Brough site in our local area is entirely positive.
	The links go far and wide. The current mayor of Goole is an employee at Brough BAE Systems, as is the husband of my secretary in the constituency. Perhaps I should therefore declare an interest, although many more people than just those two are employed there-and, in fact, the mayor of Goole is a Labour party member so I am working cross-party in that respect.
	There have been a number of challenges to the Brough factory in recent years. It is heavily reliant on Hawk contracts, for instance, and a couple of years ago there were a number of job losses. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle worked incredibly closely to try to alleviate the pain of that. Following the problems back in 2008 and earlier we got an assurance from BAE Systems that the over-reliance on the Hawk contracts at Brough would cease and that it would seek to broaden the work undertaken there. However, I can only repeat what the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle has said in response to the latest threats to Brough:
	"So with the first test of this so-called transitional plan, which only ended in December, it has failed and I think this is a breach of faith."
	There are certainly those in the Brough work force who would share the sentiment that despite the assurances BAE Systems gave some years ago, the continued reliance on Hawk has led us to the position we are now in. I urge the Minister to give us assurances this evening in whatever way he can that the Government will put as much pressure as possible on BAE Systems to ensure that the work undertaken at Brough is broadened in furtherance of the agreement of some two years ago.
	It is also important to pay tribute to the unions at the Brough site. Every time there have been threats to jobs at Brough, they have engaged in a positive way with management, local elected representatives and the local councils, who are also incredibly supportive of the site. As we move forward in addressing difficult decisions more generally, the nature of their engagement might serve as a lesson to others about what can be achieved when we have a proper positive partnership between unions, staff and management. I hope others will take a lead from the engagement at Brough as they face their own issues in coming months and years.
	I also seek some assurances from the Minister this evening on the future of the Hawk contracts. We have not been able to get to the bottom of that. We are told that there are three countries, two of which have been named-one as country X, for whatever reason-where there are potential Hawk contracts ready to be signed. What is different about the current position at Brough, where about 210 jobs are under threat, is that this seems to have come as a bolt out of the blue. When there has been a threat to jobs in the past, the management at BAE Systems have engaged positively with local Members of Parliament, the local councils and the work force to see what pressure can be applied, wherever, to try to alleviate the problems. This time, the threat seems to have come out of the blue, so we are unclear as to what exactly the contracts are, at what point the Hawk contracts are at and whether indeed there are any contracts. The securing of one of these contracts would put the site on a secure footing for a couple of years. If the Minister is unable to respond this evening to those points, I urge him to take them up with BAE Systems and respond to the work force and MPs as soon as possible.
	It is also important to welcome the new Government's movement on the so-called "commercial foreign policy", because this is something we need. I heard with interest the comments about the success of the UK's aerospace industry over the past few years. It did not happen overnight or in the past 13 years; it happened because of decisions taken decades ago, many of them in the 1980s and often in the teeth of opposition, because of the nature of the work involved, from the Labour party-depending on who gets its leadership, we might see that again in the future. Those tough and important decisions taken in the national interest decades ago have led to the successful industry we have in this country today.

John Woodcock: The hon. Gentleman makes persuasive points, but does he not think that they underline the importance of the decisions that we are going to take next month in ensuring that the next two decades can continue to provide export growth?

Andrew Percy: I do think that, but Labour Members have absolutely no credibility on this issue. They could and should have undertaken the strategic defence review a number of years ago, and they have left us in the current financial position. They must accept that the decisions being taken today are not down to this Government, but to our inheritance from the previous one.

Mark Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Percy: No, I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I fear that we will end up getting into too much of a political debate. Perhaps I have contributed to that, and I apologise, so I shall now focus much more on the positives of how we can make progress.
	There is the potential for us to work on a cross-party basis and for MPs representing different parts of the country to work together to protect their local work forces. The Government have got the right idea about going out there and selling for Britain. I take the point that the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) made about the fact that we must prove our commitment to our products, and I am sure that the Minister will have heard what he said. Tough decisions lie ahead, but as long as this dialogue takes place early, the announcements do not come out of the blue and we are given the full information about where we are at, particularly on the Hawk contracts and the Brough site, we can perhaps alleviate many of the current threats to jobs.
	I conclude by, again, emphasising that the Brough site has a highly skilled and dedicated work force, who are an important part of not only the local economy, but the national economy. We have to get real about this commitment to improving manufacturing in this country, and there we have an excellent example that can be drawn upon for use in other areas of Government policy. I urge the Government to do all that they can to work with BAE Systems, to protect jobs not only in Brough and my patch, but across the whole industry. It is a huge success story for our country, and I look forward to the Minister's response.

Gordon Birtwistle: I congratulate the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) on managing to get this important issue on the agenda this evening. I have worked in the aerospace industry for more than 40 years, and I can remember working on the old Phantom engine at Lucas Aerospace many, many years ago. Amazingly, some of those engines are still being used in jet fighters in underdeveloped countries.
	It is important to remember that this country can no longer afford to develop new military aerospace equipment, because it is far too expensive for a single country to do that. The European countries of Germany and Spain-the ones involved in the Eurofighter contracts-have appreciated that. One thing that concerns me a little is that although the Eurofighter is being built at the moment, we should be developing the next stage of military aircraft now. It does not happen overnight. A new aircraft does not just happen tomorrow-it takes years and years to develop. I hope that the European Union, in collaboration with all the aerospace companies, is starting to consider the next combat plane that will have to be developed after Eurofighter finishes.
	Eurofighter is being built at Samlesbury, near Preston, but the biggest contract for Preston would be one that has already been mentioned: the F-35. Our requirements for the F-35 are negligible compared with what the USA wants. I understand that it is considering somewhere in the region of 3,000 of these aeroplanes. Quite a large number of them will be built in Lancashire at Samlesbury and Warton. I hope that the Minister can press the USA to take final decisions on engine design and engine contracts, because I know that Rolls-Royce at Barnoldswick is urgently awaiting the contract.

Graham Jones: The hon. Gentleman makes some excellent points and I agree with him. I am concerned about our capacity at Warton if we are solely reliant on the F-35 and the Eurofighter is cancelled or reduced. The F-35 is not assembled in the UK but in the USA, so we will not need the runway at Warton and we will lose our capacity. There are ongoing issues when we rely totally on the F-35. We should not be doing that; we should be trying to keep our European bases, which is the point that he is making.

Gordon Birtwistle: All military aircraft go out of fashion. By the time the Eurofighter was developed, the countries that would potentially be our enemies were already developing systems to combat it. We have to accept that, as it has gone on for ever. I remember the TSR2-not many people in this Chamber will remember that-which got almost to the point of taking off when the then Labour Government cancelled it. This has nothing to do with politics, really-it has to do with collaboration between countries across the world in developing the fighters.
	One thing that I want quickly to mention is the link between military aircraft and commercial aircraft. Modern aeroplanes, such as the Airbus, are built around the technology that has been developed over many years in military aircraft. The fly-by-wire in the Airbus was initially developed in the early stages of the English Electric Lightning aircraft and was developed further for commercial aircraft. Military aircraft sales in this country are very high-I accept that-but they pale into insignificance when they are linked to the sales of commercial airliners.
	Rolls-Royce is one of the manufacturers, and much is built in Burnley-the thrust reversers are built at Aircelle. The contracts for the Trent engine and the Airbus wings all involve products that have been developed from old military technology.

Mark Hendrick: I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman. As a young engineer, I trained at the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment. Liquid crystal was one of the products that was developed there for military use. As we know, that has formed the basis of television sets sold in millions around the world. That is a technology that we developed and that we are not exploiting as a nation because the sets are made in other countries in the far east. The loss of any industry in the north-west would mean that we would lose the spin-off industry, as well as the direct industries that he talks about.

Gordon Birtwistle: Yes, that is another industry that developed from military aircraft. My link is from military to commercial and concerns the potential for sales of commercial equipment-that is, the new Trent XWB Rolls-Royce engine that we hope will power the new family of single-aisle aircraft after the Boeing 737s and A320s have finished their lives. All that technology starts in the military field because commercial companies cannot afford to develop the technology. They live off what they get from the Government to develop technologies to power military aircraft, and that spins off into commercial aircraft. When the Government order military aircraft, they might-indeed, I am sure they do-contribute to the development of commercial airliners and engines in this country. Thousands of people work in that industry and we are world leaders in it. We probably produce the best aircraft wings ever built and Boeing is certainly a big customer of many manufacturers in this country, particularly Rolls-Royce, whose Trent engine powers the new Dreamliner, the 777, most of the Boeing 737s and the majority of the Airbus aeroplanes. Hon. Members will know that the new A380 is powered by the new Trent 900 engine.
	It is important to keep military aircraft going, but it is also important to keep a focus on the cost of doing so and the cost of developing those aircraft. I understand that Eurofighters cost about £20 million apiece. It is important to link all that together and consider the development of commercial equipment that spins off from military equipment. As I have said, military equipment comes and goes-in my life, I have seen some aircraft cancelled and some that are developed go on to be very successful-but it is important to focus on what we can get from the development of military equipment into commercial equipment, as that is where all the money is made by companies that work in that industry.

Graham Jones: The hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) made a good point about cross-subsidy. We can look at BAE Systems and start from there. It spends £101,000 for every £1 million-10% of its revenue-on research and development, and it is the third-highest of 850 UK firms when it comes to R and D. He made the tremendous point that any reduction in our military or industrial base will affect commercial opportunities and other businesses in the north-west and the UK.
	This is not a two-sided argument, as some Government Members have characterised it. It is not about deficit reduction or increased national debt, and I am very concerned that the Treasury is leading on this issue rather than the Ministry of Defence. The arguments between the Chancellor and the MOD do not serve the country or the aviation industry well, and statements such as that by the Secretary of State for Defence that we will buy "off the shelf" are very unhelpful.
	The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) talked about scaremongering. When workers hear those kinds of comments and see job losses, they are naturally concerned. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) said, they have every right to approach their Member of Parliament and expect them to stand up on their behalf and for their jobs and families. They also have sense in that they understand that the sector is part of the UK's industrial base, especially in Lancashire and the north-west.
	I think we are all aware of the UK's industrial base. I want to read out three points from the plethora that have been raised with me. First, the UK is the world leader in the manufacture of aircraft wings and engines, as the hon. Member for Burnley pointed out, and has a 35% market share in the sale of engines, which is worth more than £5.1 billion a year. Secondly, defence exports are generally worth £5 billion a year to the UK economy and support 65,000 jobs. Thirdly, according to the Government's 2009 value added scoreboard, the aerospace and defence sector added £12 billion in value to the economy. The average value added per employee in the industry was very high, as the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) pointed out, at £116,000, whereas for general manufacturing, the figure is £15,500 per employee in Lancashire. The £116,000 figure also compares well with those for other industries. The sector is one of Britain's success stories, as has been pointed out.
	This is not about scaremongering. The hon. Gentleman is right that it is important that these issues are raised in this place and discussed thoroughly. The citizens who elect us are the important people, not us. We are simply advocates on their behalf. They are the ones who will face redundancy and repossession when they are unable to pay the mortgage. Britain will suffer from the economic impact-and there will be an economic impact. This is not a case of pushing one domino over and perhaps two or three others falling. In the case of the defence industry, if one domino is pushed over, it is likely that the whole lot will go down, and Britain's industrial capacity in one of our best exporting sectors will then be torn away.
	The north-west has a great export and manufacturing story. However, as the hon. Member for Burnley said, that has come on the back of military spending and Government contracts. The old private sector and state industries are long gone, and the heartbeat of the north-west economy is kept ticking by, if not the public service, defence and nuclear.
	The Chancellor's priorities for the coalition Government are a return to manufacturing, and a focus on the private sector and on manufacturing companies that are able to export to get Britain out of the so-called deficit. The north-west's defence industry ticks all those boxes. We should look at the domino principle of how everything collapses if the industrial and skills bases are taken away. If things are turned off today, they will not come back on in five years' time. Given that the industry ticks all the boxes that the coalition has put forward, I do not understand why it would cancel any of the defence contracts.

Gordon Birtwistle: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the age profile of a lot of the work force in the British aerospace industry, particularly in Lancashire, and the engineering industry is getting very high and that when those members of staff move, the companies should seriously consider replacing them with a major influx of new apprentices? We heard earlier that BAE Systems takes on a derisory number of apprentices compared with the number of people whom it employs.

Graham Jones: The hon. Gentleman makes the good point that a lot of skilled people in the sector developed their skills in the 1960s and 1970s. We paid the price for the great manufacturing recession of the 1980s with the loss of capacity and skills. Those in my generation are missing from the skilled group, and such unskilled people should have become skilled so that they could work in places such as Warton and Samlesbury. The history lesson from the 1980s shows that when manufacturing is hit, it does not come back, and we should take that lesson on board when we consider defence spending.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about apprenticeships. BAE Systems has some 200 apprentices. It spends £1 million at the university of Central Lancashire and is heavily involved in trying to bring young people through so that they get skills. On job prospects, I have heard someone-it might have been my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband)-talking about Govan shipyard or Asda, and one could almost say for us that it is a supermarket or BAE. That is not quite true, but it is a lot of people's perception of job prospects. A job at British Aerospace, as it was formerly known, was something to behold because someone employed there was working for a first-class company that was one of the best in the region.
	The Minister has heard a lot of evidence during the debate-all of it true-to show that we cannot afford to cancel defence contracts now.

Ben Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is addressing the House in a positive manner and we are with him on maintaining jobs, skills and our excellent defence export industry. However, is he edging towards suggesting what his party would be able to cut to maintain the defence expenditure that he is proposing? Government Members would be fascinated to hear what might be sacrificed so that his skills base and industry may be supported.

Graham Jones: Thank you very much for raising that. You make a very good point that there has been no dialogue-

Mr Speaker: Order. May I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that I have not made any point at all? It is important that the second person is not used. We must get into the habit of holding debates through the Chair. I know that the hon. Gentleman will wish to continue that now-we look forward to it.

Graham Jones: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. It is a result of being a new MP.
	There has been little dialogue between the Government and unions. We need more discussion of the future prospects. I appeal to the coalition to engage in more dialogue and to think about the decision that it will make.

David Rutley: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the chance to say a few words. I had not intended to speak, but this is a stimulating and important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) on securing the time for a debate on such an important subject. We have heard some great remarks.
	Although I had not planned to speak, the subject is important to me as the Member of Parliament for Macclesfield because in the neighbouring constituency, Cheadle, there is a big BAE site, BAE Woodford, which is a former aerodrome, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) no doubt knows, having been raised in Poynton. Many of the work force live in Macclesfield. Woodford is famous for the Lancaster bomber, the Vulcan, and now Nimrod. It is also famous for many well known air shows, where Concord turned up.
	BAE Woodford is symbolic of the importance of the industry to the UK. In recent decades it has seen a huge amount of investment in the new Nimrod MRA4, which is a magnificent aircraft. I have had the chance to tour the aircraft on site and it is an amazing structure. Sadly, the long-term survival of that aircraft is not guaranteed, despite the best efforts of my predecessor, Sir Nicholas Winterton, of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter), and of the work force and management of BAE. It is well known that the site will close in 2012.
	Today we have been meeting the Minister and are extremely grateful to him for the time that he has given. We made representations about the importance of securing the remaining nine Nimrod MRA4s that we are keen to see produced, which will be vital to protect this country's Trident capability. We will see how that emerges from the strategic defence review. We are very hopeful.
	It is important not just for BAE Woodford and the people who work there, but in the context of the debate, that we have a strong and vibrant aviation industry and military capability. We need that not only to find jobs for people when the 600 jobs at Woodford go in 2012-of course I am concerned about that-but in order to maintain our sovereign capability, which has been well described in the debate. We must have that at the forefront of our minds.
	The other point that has been made on both sides of the House is that we need to maintain the skills and the experience that underpin this vital industry. Those are important to the economy not just of the north-west or the other side of the Pennines, but to the whole country. The industry is strategically important. I hope that on the strength of the debate, the strength of feeling and the judgments that have been made by the Minister and his colleagues, we will see the industry thrive and succeed. It will be vital in future. I hope the Minister will take note of these points, and I look forward to hearing his response later.

David Hanson: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me to speak in the debate. It is always a pleasure to be able to contribute to a debate when I had not expected to do so, and today is one of those rare opportunities. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) for initiating the debate and I apologise to him for missing the commencement of it. The previous business finished earlier than we expected.
	I shall use the opportunity to make a case that I have made before to the House with regard to the A400M future large aircraft, with which the Minister will be familiar. It is a major development project for future military aircraft that involves manufacturing capability in my constituency in north Wales, with the Broughton Airbus site, and also creates employment in Bristol and the Avon area.
	The Minister will know that some 6,500 people are employed at the Broughton site. Many-to continue the tenor of the debate-live and work in the north-west, and many live and work in my constituency in north Wales. Indeed, some 2,000 of the people who work at that plant are based in my constituency, and they are very concerned to ensure that the A400M aircraft is developed, purchased and built, and that the relevant skills are grown, to ensure that we meet the needs not only of the military, but of the skills base in the private sector.
	The Minister will know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), when Defence Secretary, signed a contract for the purchase of 22 A400M aircraft-before the general election but in the window between January and the general election date. The current Government have now deemed that period to be one for the review of contracts. The Minister is currently reviewing the contracts for the purchases that my right hon. Friend intended to make at that time, and I wish to see the Minister do so positively, for the reason that the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) gave.
	The use and development of military technology is strongly linked to the development of civil aircraft. Members will know that the Airbus factory at Broughton produces world-class wings for civil aircraft, but it does so based on the technology, skills and investment in people that its military capacity is developing and, with the A400M, I hope will continue to develop. There is a great synergy between the two, and, when I recently met the trade unions, which work very positively with the management at that factory, to look at the work on civil and military projects, they recognised that although the Airbus factory in north Wales, servicing north Wales and the north-west, does not make a major contribution to the A400M, the skills, expertise and wings that are developed for civil aircraft very much depend on its successful construction.
	The A400M is a flexible aircraft, providing the opportunity for the strong development of the required technologies in modern aircraft. It offers the requirements that the military need for civil, military and humanitarian usage, and it is an excellent technology that has long been in development. I was very pleased when that contract was signed, so I am disappointed that it is under review, but I hope that the Minister will review it positively. Given what I have heard from Members today, this debate is not just about our military capability, but about maintaining a world-class manufacturing base with skills development and long-term jobs in the British aerospace industry, both in the military sector and, as with my constituency, in the civil sector.
	Those skills are interchangeable, but if we duck that challenge, purchase products off the shelf from foreign countries and do not develop our skill base, we will be exporting those jobs to competitors-to foreign countries-who will ultimately cost us more in the long term, not just in terms of our technology and our ability to export products and skills to other countries, but in relation to our future defence capacity.
	I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Fylde for initiating this debate and to you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to contribute, however shortly, given the time that we have had. This has been a very valuable debate, and there are real issues at stake, so I hope that the Minister, in his difficult deliberations, will take on board my constructive comments about the A400M and, ultimately, confirm the contracts that my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East signed in good faith in order to keep that skills base in north Wales and in the United Kingdom.

Peter Luff: It is customary to congratulate the hon. Gentleman or hon. Lady who has secured such a debate at the end of the day, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) with particular pleasure today. It is his first Adjournment debate, mine too as a Minister, but it has been of the most exceptional value and great quality, so his congratulations are all the more deserved. There has been a phenomenal level of participation in what is normally a half-hour debate. My brief is littered with handwritten comments, which I hope I can decipher as I go through my remarks. If for any inadvertent reason I unintentionally overlook any hon. Gentleman in my response, I shall of course write to them subsequently. I also congratulate my hon. Friend on what was a very informative and entertaining maiden speech in the House during the debate on the strategic defence and security review on 21 June. He is clearly carrying on with exceptional skill the excellent work of his predecessor, Michael Jack, who also spoke very strongly for the aerospace industry in the north-west.
	 Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9( 3  )),
	 Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.- (Miss  Chloe  Smith . )

Peter Luff: This debate is timely, as my hon. Friend said, not only for the reasons he gave us-the very sad redundancies, which I want to discuss later-but because of its significance to the strategic defence and security review process. That process seriously constrains how far I can go in replying to many of the points made by hon. Members, and I apologise for that, but the debate is an important contribution to the process, and I welcome it for that reason.
	The debate is also timely for a second reason, as we heard. Today is battle of Britain day: 15 September 1940, 70 years ago, was a critical turning point in the war, when RAF fighter command claimed a decisive victory over the Luftwaffe. It is fitting, when debating the aviation industry today, to pause and pay tribute to the bravery of our RAF service personnel, past and present, and to all those who work so hard to design and build the aircraft in which they fly. From the battle of Britain to Afghanistan, the skills of all those who work in the industry and their commitment to supporting our servicemen and women has proved to be second to none.
	The contribution made by the UK's military aviation industry in supporting our armed forces cannot be underestimated, and it certainly has not been in the Chamber this evening. All three of your Deputy Speaker colleagues, Mr Speaker, have interests in the aerospace and military aviation sector. I know that the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr Hoyle) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) are particularly sad not to be able to contribute to this debate-they, too, have been outspoken advocates for their constituencies in the past-and the right hon. Member for Bristol South (Dawn Primarolo) has a strong local aviation industry and a vital interest in the A400M project.
	I am relieved that Members from areas other than the north-west turned up. This is not just a north-west issue, although it is very important to that region, and the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) demonstrated that fact. We also have interests in Yorkshire and around the country, including the south-east, the south-west, the west midlands, and the east midlands. Wherever one goes there are aviation and military aviation interests, so I am glad that the debate has been so broadly drawn.
	Our servicemen and women who are currently deployed on operations, particularly in Afghanistan, deserve the best equipment that we can provide, and there is no doubt that the UK military aviation industry has risen to that challenge in the past and, as hon. Gentlemen have said, continues to do so. I listened carefully to my hon. Friend's excellent speech and I share his heartfelt and sincere view that it is crucial for the security of the UK and our allies that we have a strong and dynamic military aviation industry both now and in the future.
	BAE Systems' Warton facility, which lies within my hon. Friend's constituency, demonstrates this ethos, supporting as it does the important multinational Typhoon and joint strike fighter programmes. I will be concentrating on fast jets and unmanned aerial vehicles-UAVs-but military aviation of course encompasses much more, including helicopters, tankers, strategic lift and, as the right hon. Member for Delyn reminded us in his fine speech on the A400M, intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance, or ISTAR.
	Turning briefly to ISTAR, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) told the House that he had met me, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) and the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher), to discuss the Nimrod MRA4. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends and to the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which they put their case and, in particular, to the trade union representatives from Woodford who came with them and made such a powerful case. I apologise publicly for the fact that the meeting was so disrupted by Divisions in the House, but I think they successfully conveyed their key messages, and I congratulate them on that. I promise that I will take careful account of what was said.
	The coalition Government recognise, of course, that the UK military aviation industry is a vital strategic asset. The challenge is to maintain a vibrant and innovative industry capable of meeting the needs of the MOD at a time of financial challenge, and to be competitive in the world marketplace while at the same time minimising any MOD investment in artificial sustainment activities-we want this activity to be real. We simply cannot do this without listening to what industry has to say; and industry has had some very powerful advocates in the Chamber this evening.
	That is why, in addition to the engagement with industry that has occurred during the SDSR-despite, Mr Speaker, reports to the contrary-I recently announced the publication of a Green Paper at the end of this year to explain the MOD's defence industry and technology policy, to follow the conclusions of the SDSR in the autumn. It will include a full discussion of many issues, including sovereign capabilities and skills-I hope that will please my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard)-and, I hope, the role of apprentices, which was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) and for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy). On a recent visit to Rolls-Royce I was struck by the number of senior managers who had started their working life with the company as apprentices, which shows how important that route of entry into the industry is.
	As a result of that Green Paper process, we will publish a White Paper in the spring, which will formally set out our approach to industry and technology through to the next SDSR, which I hope will come after a much shorter gap than this one. That will provide the clarity that the industry needs to understand what our priorities are and how we plan to engage with it to bring those priorities to fruition.
	Two of the highest priorities in the Green Paper and White Paper will be reinvigorated Government support for exports and helping small and medium-sized enterprises to expand and prosper. Many of them serve and supply the military aviation industry, as hon. Members have said. We will support the drive for exports with an active and innovative programme of defence diplomacy, and Ministers will play an important and personal role in that.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Fylde and for Blackpool North and Cleveleys mentioned the role of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in securing a recent Hawk contract in India, which shows how important high-level ministerial engagement is. When I wore a previous hat, as Chairman of what was once called the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, we repeatedly made the call for such engagement, and I am delighted to see it bearing fruit so quickly under the coalition Government. The entire ministerial team was at the Farnborough air show this year to demonstrate our support for military exports in general and the military aviation sector in particular. I undertake that that level of support from Ministers will continue.
	I turn to the BAE Systems site in Samlesbury. The MoD continues to recognise BAE's integral role in the UK aerospace industry, and it is essential that we continue to work together for our mutual benefit as we establish and confirm the UK's strategic objectives in the wake of the SDSR. In that respect, I very much welcome the company's own review that is currently under way to ensure that its Military Air Solutions business has the right balance of skills, capabilities and resources to meet the new challenges that lie ahead. That cannot be achieved without some effect on the structure of the company, and I note with sadness the company's announcement on 9 September that it sees a need for more than 700 job losses at a number of its aviation business sites following decisions by the last Government in 2009. Those losses come on top of earlier such announcements.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde will be aware, however, that BAE Systems is making a multi-million-pound investment in the north-west at its Samlesbury facility, which will be state-of-the-art. The company aims to develop the site into a major centre for unmanned air system development. Samlesbury has a strong tradition of design, engineering and manufacturing excellence in the aerospace industry, for which I pay tribute to it. It is home to some of the most advanced aerospace manufacturing and assembly technologies in the world.
	On the subject of advanced technologies, unmanned air systems, which my hon. Friend mentioned, are already making a critical contribution to our operations in Afghanistan. Hermes 450, Desert Hawk and Reaper are saving the lives of our forces, our allies and the Afghan people themselves. I look forward to the introduction of Thales's Watchkeeper system, which is currently the MOD's largest unmanned air vehicle procurement programme. It will provide operational commanders with a day and night, all-weather capability to detect and track targets without the need to deploy troops into potentially sensitive and dangerous areas. My hon. Friend mentioned HERTI, which, if I remember correctly, is a privately funded capability at BAE Systems.
	Looking further forward, we are investing in programmes to help us better understand possible future roles for unmanned air systems. Mantis, for example, is a programme funded jointly by the MOD and BAE Systems, which is leading an industrial consortium. The programme is a concept demonstrator with state-of-the-art sensors that will demonstrate a UK-developed deep and persistent intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance capability of the type currently provided by Reaper.

Mark Hendrick: The Minister is speaking very strongly about the importance of the UAV programme, which is taking place principally at Warton, and I totally agree with him. He mentioned the restructuring at Samlesbury, which we all know has amounted to hundreds of jobs being lost last year and hundreds more this year. What does he have to say to people there who are going to lose their jobs, some of whom have given a lifetime of commitment to Samlesbury? That is likely happen to even more of them as a result of the defence review, in addition to the losses announced recently.

Peter Luff: I hope the hon. Gentleman heard me express deep regret for those redundancies, which result from decisions taken in the past. Exactly how BAES chooses to distribute its skills and work force in future is a matter for BAES, and it is not for me to comment. However, I express deep regret to those individuals, many of whom are outstanding engineers and technicians who started as apprentices and who have given a lifetime of work to some excellent products. I shall turn to the importance of maintaining a skills-base in the north-west, in particular for unmanned aerial systems, in a moment.
	Another unmanned aerial system, Taranis, is the MOD's prototype unmanned combat aircraft of the future. Built by BAES, Taranis reflects the best of our nation's advanced design and technology skills. It will allow the MOD to gain a better understanding of the most cost-effective and capable future combat air capability force mix between manned and unmanned platforms. A pinnacle of UK engineering and aeronautical design, Taranis is a leading programme on the global stage and a significant step forward in this country's fast jet capability. It is truly a trailblazing project.
	To return to a point I made earlier, projects such as Mantis and Taranis will enable the UK to retain vital aeronautical engineering and design skills, not least in the north-west at Warton and Samlesbury. However, we acknowledge the risk to sustainment of critical engineering skills and, in particular, a critical mass of design skills within the UK aerospace sector. We are currently funding some work with BAES and key UK suppliers to sustain capabilities pending SDSR outcomes, which I am afraid I cannot prejudge.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde of course has a specific in interest in Warton, and its work is vital to the Department. The Typhoon programme contracts are worth approximately £20 billon for, from memory, about 160 aircraft, up to and including tranche 3A. I was asked to say that I would not cancel tranche 3B, but I cannot cancel it, because no order has been placed. However, all future Typhoon contracts are SDSR dependent. Of course, a significant proportion of the Typhoon work goes to BAES.
	The MOD has also awarded a contract worth approximately £145 million for unmanned air systems air projects based at Warton. As a number of hon. Members pointed out, the site makes a critical contribution to the multi-billion dollar JSF F-35 programme, about which many hon. Members spoke enthusiastically. I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) and for Pendle that a two-engine option is vastly preferable in terms of security, design and driving down cost. I hope our American friends will be persuaded to pursue the two-engine option, which offers great strategic and financial advantages to countries participating in the programme.
	The UK's military aerospace industry is well placed to continue performing significant work in maintaining Typhoon's capability edge and to address the considerable export interest that is being shown. Indeed, with two existing export customers-Austria and Saudi Arabia-official campaigns being pursued in India, Japan, Turkey and other countries, and with further opportunities in the middle east, including in Oman and Qatar, Typhoon promises to provide excellent employment prospects. That underlines that healthy defence exports are the best way in which to sustain a viable defence and aerospace sector in the UK.
	The hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) suggested that we were in some sense withdrawing from a commitment to Typhoon, but nothing could be further from the truth. Such suggestions are very damaging to our defence exports. This country has a fine aircraft in Typhoon, which is already in active service and serving the country very well indeed. However, the Typhoon situation will require the industry to continue modernising its approach to address the capability and through-life support requirements of those customers, as it does in the UK, rather than simply focusing on aircraft production and supply. Through-life support costs are hugely important, and we look forward to showing the way ahead through the Green Paper that I mentioned. Certainly, we will work with industry to ensure that, in future, our requirements for new equipment are designed from their inception with exportability in mind. That is very important in, for example, the unmanned air systems environment.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde asked for reassurances on the JSF. Again, it must be SDSR dependent, as in everything else, but the UK's contribution to the JSF development will not change-it is fixed by the memorandum of understanding that we signed jointly with the US in 2001. There are significant work share benefits for the UK aerospace sector and it is important to recognise that those benefits come because of the excellence of that sector, which has won those contracts in competition in world markets. That is a great tribute to British engineering and the sector itself.
	The UK's plans to purchase further joint strike fighters are incremental-we already have some bought for test purposes-and they have always been based on the programme reaching technical maturity levels and being affordable within the overall resources for defence. We will regard future purchasing plans accordingly, as part of the normal planning process and the outcome of the SDSR. The UK continues to play an important role in the JSF programme through the provision of expertise and resources, including RAF pilots who are now flying the short take-off and vertical landing-or STOVL-flight test aircraft.
	The SDSR underpins all this work and, together with the new national security strategy, will provide a coherent and consultative approach to security and defence across government. Our National Security Council has agreed that the overarching strategic posture should be to address the most immediate threats to our national security while maintaining the ability to identify and deal with emerging ones before they become bigger threats to Britain. This flexible, adaptable posture will maintain the ability to safeguard international peace and security, to deter and contain those who threaten Britain and her interests and, where necessary, to intervene on multiple fronts. It will also, crucially, keep our options open for a future in which we can expect our highest priorities to change over time.
	It is very clear that the current defence programme is unaffordable and tough choices will need to be made. It cannot be said too often that the programme for the next 10 years is £38 billion over-committed, a sum that we simply cannot fund. That is additional to any requirement to cut budgets beyond that. That over-commitment of the existing budget is the legacy of the last Government.

Graham Jones: Will the Minister accept that the reason for the £38 billion overspend is the Government's choice to cut the deficit further and faster? Otherwise the money would be there.

Peter Luff: Labour Members just do not get it. It is not a matter of choice. The last Government made a choice to be-I shall choose my words with great care-a little disingenuous with the figures and to make commitments that they knew they could not meet. We have to deal with the £38 billion over-commitment before we address any budget deficit reductions, and that is the problem we face in the Ministry of Defence.

Mark Hendrick: rose- [ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. May I just say to the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) that as he has only just toddled into the Chamber he should not be chuntering from a sedentary position in evident disapproval of the views of others?

Mark Hendrick: The Minister ignores the fact that we had a major global economic crisis and the Government had to bail out the banks after the irresponsible behaviour of generations of financiers. The reason we are in the terrible state we are in now, which the coalition Government seem to forget, is the behaviour of the bankers, not of the previous Government.

Peter Luff: It is the nature of Adjournment debates not to be too partisan, so I shall just spell it out in very simple language. The problem facing the MOD-the £38 billion-is nothing to do with international crises or bankers. It is because the last Government made commitments that they had no money to pay for. It is nothing to do with deficit reduction or the crisis. I could not be clearer about that. The £38 billion is a problem that we have inherited that we would have had to deal with irrespective of any need to address the extraordinarily large structural deficit that we also have in the UK. The £38 billion is a starting point before we address the consequences of the crisis.

John Woodcock: I hope that the Minister will accept my apologies for coming in slightly late for his speech. Members on both sides of the House accept that there is an over-commitment in the budget. Will he accept the findings of the Defence Committee's report today that there is a grave danger that if the correction is done in the wrong manner-and it is being done very quickly-we will lose the capacity to maintain or restore capability in vital areas in future years?

Peter Luff: The Select Committee's statement was constructive and thoughtful. I have not read every word of it yet, but it is a very helpful document. In some areas, it has not quite understood the process, but never mind-it is a good response, and today's debate shows that Members on both sides of the House, including me, understand how important it is to maintain these capabilities and to ensure that we can take part in the next generation, particularly of unmanned aerial systems, which are the future of fast jet production. I will not labour the £38 billion point anymore, but it does set the framework of what the Government have to contend with.
	For Britain's defence, and despite all the financial constraints we linger under-both inherited ones and the structural problems caused by irresponsibility in fiscal policy generally-that means taking strategic decisions for the long term. These are the realities we face as we approach the critical decision-making phase of the SDSR. I reiterate that no decisions have been taken on any of the issues debated in the House this evening. The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) referred to the A400M. Everything is in the pot, including the Nimrod MRA4. Everything is there together, and nothing has been singled out or decided. We have to do that to ensure we address both the fiscal challenges and the defence issues facing our country.

David Hanson: The contracts for the A400M were signed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) before the election, but that has been put in abeyance by the coalition Government. So a decision has been made on something that would, it had been decided, go ahead.

Peter Luff: I would like to be more explicit, but I cannot be. We are, and I quote:
	"Pleased that agreement in principle on the future of the A400M programme has been reached between Partner Nations and Airbus Military (AMSL); this is an important stage in agreeing an amended contract."-
	the contract now needs to be amended-
	"Work on the amended contract continues, and we expect it to be concluded later this year. However, as these discussions are ongoing and at a critical state, it would be inappropriate to provide any further details at this stage."
	I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept, therefore, that the issue is not just about the SDSR; negotiations are also going on at present.
	I said that no decisions had been taken. However, my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary made one such commitment at Defence questions earlier this week: he is keeping the RAF. I hope that provides some reassurance to hon. Members.
	The potential prize is great: modernised, well-supported armed forces ready to defend and promote British national interests and successful manufacturing industry to support that. The UK military aviation industry is a strategic asset, and this Government will ensure that it remains so. We are committed to increasing the exportability of our equipment and delivering the industrial and technology support our armed forces need. The MOD's defence industry and technology policy Green Paper will be a significant step towards achieving those aims. I welcome the opportunity to engage with our industrial partners in the coming months to ensure that, despite the serious financial challenge we face, these aims will become a reality.
	 Question put and agreed to
	 House adjourned.